|
|
Site Overview at a Glance
|
General
|
|
Tuesday, 25 September 2007 |
|
http://www.fredoneverything.net/FOE_Frame_Column.htm A Talmudic Jump-Shot I want to be a star center for the NBA, with ten years back pay. Now. And a rabbi. As a generic white-bread male, I once opposed affirmative action, and said vicious and insensitive things about its remarkable resemblance to a spoils system. I have seen the error of my ways, however, and hereby recant. We should keep affirmative action, I now believe, but democratize it. Everyone should enjoy the honors and emoluments of proven incapacity. The flaw with affirmative action is not that it rewards the ineffectual, but that it rewards only some of the ineffectual. It doesn't discriminate even-handedly. Right now, relative preference is given to the relatively incompetent, and absolute preference to the hopeless--but only if they are of the correct race or sex. Suppose that, say, Samoan Americans score twenty points on the SATs below white applicants for an Ivy League school. Some slight enthusiasm will arise for accepting them--but not much. Twenty points is too niggling a deficit. Maybe the students took the tests with a hangover, and the inability is only apparent. But if a black student scores 250 points lower that whites, he will be judged almost supernaturally qualified, and stuffed bodily into Berkley. A white applicant whose academic prospects were equally bleak would be junked. No sensible or fair-minded person can object to awarding advancement according to competitive incompetence, but the American way is to reward individual disqualifications, as distinct from group incapacities. White males also are individually incompetent in some fields, sometimes disastrously so. Should they not be give preference for those specific jobs they can't handle? Professional basketball, for example. An unbiased judge would have to conclude that I am preternaturally unsuited to replace Michael Jordan on the Chicago Bulls. I am too short, too slow, too old, too weak. My jump shot, though a thing of beauty, is too independent -minded to go where I tell it. It is true that I am not actually confined to a wheel chair, but I am otherwise a dream candidate for affirmative action. I want to play center. Further, I have the collateral credentials, being a victim: The NBA obviously discriminates against white players, or would if it had any. Alas, poor me. How I have suffered. Further still, I have been a victim for generations. (I'm not sure what that means, but I don't think it matters.) Blacks invariably point to slavery as justification for preference, the mistreatment of a great-grandfather being undeniable qualification for admission to a doctoral program in laser physics. Ah, but white males can make the similar claims. I too can demonstrate that some of my ancestors were discriminated against, somewhere else, a long time ago, by people now dead, who had no connection tot he NBA. (I think a few were burned at the stake ore something on St. Bartholomew's Day in 1572. Good riddance, too. Ever meet a Calvinist?) But I don't stop at claiming the mantle of Jordan. In accordance with the accepted principle of statistical inference of injustice, I want to be a rabbi. Notice that no white Protestant male has ever been a rabbi. Not to criticize the Jews, but…hey, come on, guys: Four thousand years of history, tens of thousands of rabbis, and not one has been a Presbyterian. I'm expected to believe it's a coincidence? (Incidentally, there has never been a Jewish pope. Clearly an EEOC case. Can the 14th Amendment be broadened to include Italy? Has it been?) All right, all right. Honesty compels the recognition that those hostile to competent white males do have a case. Feminists for example point out that white males, being sexually insecure and therefore bedeviled by a compensatory obsession with achievement, have selfishly dominated history for ages. A close reading of history supports them: Such males have invented algebr4a, geometry, calculus, refrigeration, transistors, television, philosophy, architecture, computers, chemistry, automobiles, vaccines, airplanes, symphonies, washing machines, and the Simpsons (Bart and d Lisa, not O.J.) This egocentric masculine flowering has to be stopped, argue feminists compellingly, and affirmative action is the way to stop it. Fine. I'm sorry. I apologize. We pale males did do all those things. It was awful of us. We didn't mean it. All I urge is that, now, white male incompetence be equally enriched with everyone else's. Certainly something can be found which each of us guys is unsuited to do. Me and the NBA, for example. I'll start at four million a year, plus signing bonus. In conclusion, while there may be minor disadvantages to the universal promotion of inability through a more fair-minded affirmative action, the loss in technical mastery will be more than balanced by the gain in…in…hmmmm. And if you are wheeled into the operating room one day, and see your neurosurgeon standing there with a puzzled look and an ice-cream scoop, well, just have a remedial tag on your toe. ("Open other end.") Think, while you can, of the social benefit. |
|
|
Military - General
|
|
Sunday, 05 August 2007 |
Hello. I am a female Iraq combat veteran.
Will you stand up to the feminists who are campaigning to force women into
front line combat units?
One such feminist group has endorsed Hillary Clinton.
Ex-Marine Jim Webb wrote of the brutal conditions during the Vietnam War and
argued against letting women into combat.
“Surveys taken of 85% -90% of female enlisted personnel opposed the
involuntary land combat assignments.”
A man in my unit who was practicing his combat moves on me injured my arm
and this was considered legal training. It is really legalized brutality
against women. Men are no longer being trained to be gentle with women
“Feminist activists and their friends in the media keep insisting that
military women strongly desire the “opportunity” to serve in land combat
units. But is that true? Opinion surveys done by the Army indicate that
the majority of military women are strongly opposed to combat
assignments—especially if it means being forced into combat on an “equal”
basis with men.”
“ Female soldiers are brave, but no one’s son should have to die
because Army officials or field commanders violated policy and law by
substituting women for men in positions required to be all male.”
“Survival gear carried by today’s combat soldiers weigh 50-100 pounds—a
burden that is just as heavy as loads carried by Roman legionnaires in the
days of Julius Caesar.”
“Modern body armor alone weighs 25 pounds. This weight is proportionately
more difficult to carry by female soldiers who are, on average, shorter and
smaller than men, with 45-50% less upper body strength and 25-30% less
aerobic capacity, which is essential for endurance. Even in current
non-combat training, women suffer debilitating bone stress fractures and
other injuries at rates double those of men.”
Women shouldn't feel like they have to be a man in order to be equal.
“Only a few female trainees are able to perform in physically demanding
events at the same levels as average males, but policies must be based on
the majority of average soldiers, not the exceptional few. “
“Deliberate exposure of women to combat violence in war is tantamount to
acceptance of violence against women in general.”
“Young men are as likely to desire co-ed infantry assignments as they are to
play on co-ed football teams.”
“There is no military necessity to send young women and mothers to fight in
close combat areas where they do not have an equal opportunity to survive,
or to help fellow soldiers survive.”
“Women were not capable of a number of tasks under battlefield conditions,
such as digging themselves into hard ground under fire.”
“Even in some forms of military training, men have to learn to “hit” female
trainees and not think twice about it.”
“Some men who resent feminists take it a step further, expressing eagerness
to see more female soldiers injured and killed in combat. “You wanted equal
rights,” they argue. “Why shouldn’t you be expected to lose limbs, bleed,
and die in combat along with the men?”
“These were men who advocated forced combat for women for vindictive
reasons.”
“If men in uniform are going to be expected to be sex blind when it comes to
protecting their comrades, American mothers will have to get to work
instructing their sons that it’s okay to hit girls.”
“Women have no “right” to serve in combat if their presence puts the men
they serve with in jeopardy because these decent men are determined to
protect the weaker sex.”
Thank you for your time,
Jessica
All quotes from CMRlink.org
Articles written by Elaine Donnelly, President of Center for Military
Readiness. P. O. Box 51600 Livonia, MI 48151 www.cmrlink.org
|
|
|
Military - General
|
|
Sunday, 04 March 2007 |
|
http://www.lewrockwell.com/lind/lind23.html William Lind discusses how the debacle at Abu Ghraib Prison is the result of lack of discipline toward females soldiers because of politically correct fears of what may happen to a male officer who attempts to impose such discipline. |
|
|
Workplace
|
|
Saturday, 20 January 2007 |
|
http://www.angryharry.com/esMenearnquarterofamillionpoundsmore.htm Men earn quarter of a million pounds more than women during the course of their lifetimes! - by Angry Harry The article Women Do Not Deserve Equal Pay explains some of the reasons why it is that, statistically speaking, women earn less than men. And it explains why there is nothing sinister about this, for the figures simply demonstrate the consequences of women's biology and the choices that they make. Here we look at the ridiculous, distorted propaganda propounded by the EOC, squeezed out from the very same figures. The EOC is currently trumpeting the fact that men, on average, earn quarter of a million pounds more than women during the course of their lifetimes, and that, therefore, this reveals some terrible injustice being done to women. So, let's look at what this figure really means. Firstly, it means that men pay about £90,000 more in taxes than do women. In other words, the average man puts £90,000 more into the pot than does an average women. Your average man is therefore supporting women to the tune of £90,000. Just one average man! Bearing in mind also, that when it comes to benefits, such as health, pensions and income support, a whopping 70% of the budget is actually spent on women's needs, it is absolutely clear that the support, in the UK, given by men to women, is phenomenal, and it shows just how much the men in the UK truly hand over to women via the government coffers. Further, men also hand money over directly to women when they stay at home to look after the kids. And why shouldn't they stay at home to look after the kids if that's what the pair of them want? Why should feminists try to make women go out and earn the same as their partners? So, what do the feminazis at the EOC do with these figures? Well, as usual, they twist their real meanings and turn them into man-hating propaganda. Thus, they are currently squawking loudly about this quarter of a million pounds with a deliberately distorted spin designed to make women feel aggrieved, disadvantaged and hateful towards men. But let me show you something. Imagine that the figures were the other way round. Imagine that women earned quarter of a million pounds more than men during the course of their lifetimes. What would the feminazis at the EOC be saying then? It doesn't take much imagination, does it? Here are the headlines. "Women are having to do all the work. Women pay more taxes than men. The tax laws are discriminatory because they take more from women." And do you know what would happen next? There would be a major government initiative to stop benefits for men, and demand that they take up any work that was on offer. The government would set different tax rates for men and women in order to make sure that men could not benefit from 'sex-discriminatory' tax laws. But the EOC figures show that UK men put hell of a lot more into the pot, and they take hell of a lot less out of it. And it is still the case that while men die seven years earlier than women, they are still expected to work for five more years before receiving their pensions. This is going to change in the future, thanks to Brussels and the European Commission. But do notice that, working for five years longer and receiving seven years less of pension, adds up to a massive twelve years of financial injustice. A truly blatant, ongoing act of sex discrimination. An enormous act of discrimination. And what has the EOC done about this? Nothing. Nothing at all. People really must take on board the fact that the EOC is a feminist organisation dominated by all the selfish, self-centred slogans of feminism. It is probably the most sex-discriminatory body in the land, despite its cosy name, and it should have been abolished a long time ago. An Equal Opportunities Commission whose sole aim seems to be to diminish and demean constantly one half of the population by distorting the facts, the figures and their implications, cannot be allowed to continue to exist. The EOC costs a fortune, but all it does is stir up anger and resentment within women against the very men who support them - and massively so. Do the feminists at the EOC really want women to have to work for the same number of hours as men, doing the same types of jobs, for the same number of years, for the same pay, putting the same proportion of money into the pot, and getting the same amount out? And if so, who is going to look after the kids? The stupidity of Feminism, and hence of the EOC, is that in its blind, hysterical vindictiveness toward men, it actually hurts all real women as well, particularly the majority of women, who do not want to devote most of their lives and their energies to whatever it is that they might have to do to earn a decent wage. A few million UK women want to be mothers who stay at home, or just do jobs part time. What is wrong with that? And while so many women continue to CHOOSE to do this, men are BOUND, statistically speaking, to be earning more than women. |
|
|
Workplace
|
|
Saturday, 20 January 2007 |
|
http://www.angryharry.com/esFeminismKeepsWomenontheLowerRungs.htm Feminism Keeps Women on the Lower Rungs of the Jobs Ladder - by Angry Harry 1/3/00
 Women often complain that men do not seem to want to work too closely with them. Margaret Beckett, for example, is quoted as saying, "I think there have been times in my career when I have suffered from being female." Well, putting in simply, while some women continue to get away with being so easily ‘offended’ by men, it is too dangerous for men to have women too close to them at work. For example, men can be accused of sexual harassment without much in the way of cause. I remember one woman on John Stapleton’s show boasting how, over the past few years, three men had lost their jobs after she had reported them for sexual harassment. Three of them! One of these had been an ambulance driver who lost his job after 20 years of service. With women like this about, and with the law so perversely anti-male, it is hardly surprising that men steer clear of women, particularly high-powered, aggressive women. Many women also seem to get very high monetary rewards for extremely petty incidents. Wasn’t it just recently that a female doctor accidentally pricked herself with a needle and claimed that she could not face the work any longer? She was awarded half a million pounds as compensation! Who wants to employ a woman who can do this? And with the rewards also ridiculously high for alleging abuse, sex discrimination, or sexual harassment, some women are going to lie and exaggerate, or simply threaten to do these things, in order to gain power or wealth. This sort of thing is not conducive to developing trust between the sexes, and it doesn’t surprise me, therefore, to find that men are keeping clear of women in the workplace. The pervasive and perverse feminist ideology that actually makes this country stink with the overt hatred that it constantly encourages against men is another reason why worthy women like Ms Beckett will find that men will shun them, and why they will never win their battle for what they claim is ‘equality’. Too many women are just too easily offended. An example of this can be seen in an article written by Susan Bassnett (The Independent 8/4/99). She is Pro-vice-chancellor of the University of Warwick (home also to Germaine Greer) and in her article she bemoans the fact that there are too few women in high positions in the academic world. She says, "Everywhere I turn there are examples of glaring inequality: the minute percentage of women professors, the even smaller percentage of senior women in administration ... " But look at the way Ms Basnett reacts to a man who appears to show some sympathy. Here is what she tells us about one meeting that she attended where she was the only female present. "In one meeting the chairman looked around the room and said with all sincerity that something needed to be done to involve more women. ‘Look at us,’ he said apologetically.’ We are all white middle-class males here.’ ‘Speak for yourself,’ I retorted." Goodness me! Is this a pleasant reply for Ms Bassnett to have given to a man who appeared to be concerned about the very same issues of equality as herself? I don't think so. In fact, this is just the kind of unprovoked hostility that demonstrates to men why it is not worthwhile bothering about women who still moan about ‘equality’. The chairman was obviously not rewarded for his concern, but rebuffed, and so it wouldn’t surprise me if, thereafter, he decided that, well, maybe, the issue of women in higher places would not concern him any longer. If people want to stay in my house and I open the door to welcome them in, how long am I going to put up with them if they continue to attack me and make false and wild allegations against me? Not long is the answer. They’ll be out on their ears pretty quickly. And this is what men are doing to women; they’re shunning them, because any woman at any time can make any false allegation against a man, even from 20 years in the past, and they can completely destroy a man’s career and well-being. This is an extremely unpleasant, distasteful and thoroughly disgusting thing that some women do, and which all women can do. So, why should men risk their entire futures just in order to help women ‘up the ladder’ when, by doing so, they bring about these appalling risks for themselves? Who can be surprised that women are being shunned? And women have brought this upon themselves for they are the ones who have arranged matters in such a way that they, or any other woman, can destroy any man’s reputation, his career, his marriage, or even his life, by just picking up the phone and making an accusation. Whether the allegation is true or not makes little difference to the outcome for the man, the effect is pretty much the same. Who wants women like this in their midst? |
|
|
Workplace
|
|
Saturday, 20 January 2007 |
|
http://www.angryharry.com/esWomendonotDeserveEqualPay.htm Women do not Deserve Equal Pay - by Angry Harry Well-paid job in City. Salary £500,000 per annum. Needs totally committed individual. Minimum contract for 10 years. Prepared to travel away from home. Working hours from 9.00am to 9.00pm. Now, if we asked 100 men if they would like this job, well, let’s say that about 40 would say ‘yes’. But I think that out of 100 women, only 20 would say ‘yes’. Fewer women would be prepared to make such a commitment even for the high salary simply because women, statistically speaking, have a different set of priorities in their lives compared to men. And they are less obsessed about their jobs because their values tend to revolve around more personal issues, like family, children, relatives, friends, love, etc. As a result of their priorities, women will also choose to have babies, and to look after them. And babies and children take up an incredible amount of their time. How can such women possibly make up for this time when competing against men who have been focusing on their jobs throughout their lives without breaks? - particularly at the high-power, high-flier levels of any given job, where women would have to compete against the very best, and against the most ambitious, of men? Following a career and getting to the top is very much like running a marathon where there are thousands of competitors. But only the first three get a medal. The winners are going to be those who have laboured and trained and who kept going and pushing without a break. Those who stop and rest for a while to have babies will be overtaken even by the plodders. Statistically, in the end, therefore, the men will win hands down in the employment market and in the highest salary awards. They will also reach the highest posts within their professions. But it’s not the men who win the race that are holding the women back, as the EOC would like you to believe. In this area, it’s the women themselves. After all, they can choose not to have children. No-one forces them to have children. Instead, they can choose to do what men do. They can take on men's values and men's commitments, and devote more time to their jobs, if they want to. Nobody is holding them back. However, statistically speaking, compared to men, women just don’t value winning the marathon that much. Statistically, therefore, they get paid less. And quite right too, because they work fewer hours and they achieve less. However, the EOC keeps squawking loudly that women are being paid less than men and that, somehow, they are being cheated by men. The suggestion is always that men are, somehow, holding women back. But it's the same old vindictive feminist nonsense that tries to blame men for everything. The EOC also perpetually bemoans the fact that there are fewer women than men in high positions, and they always want to give us the impression that it is men who are purposefully holding the women back from reaching the heights of their profession. It simply isn't true. It's just that women, statistically speaking, care less about jobs and status than do men. But then the EOC has a long-established tradition of distorting the truth and painting a negative picture of men. It's what they appear to get paid for. It is also pointless for women to keep moaning about the fact that employers are reluctant to give them special consideration when they have children, and to demand exactly the same pay when they don't actually put in the same number of hours. Why should anybody who works full time (man or woman) have to subsidise other women in the workplace just because they choose to have children? Feminists tell us that women who have children should not be disadvantaged in the employment sphere. But, as with everything else, feminists think that the world should cater exclusively for their own selfish needs. Their gardens must always be full of roses, no matter what they do, or what they choose. They believe that women who have children should not in any way have to curtail their employment prospects or their incomes. Thus, despite the fact that such women will take leave from work (for years, perhaps) and that they will not be able to put in the same number of hours that their colleagues do, feminists argue that they should be paid the same and be given the same status! But it's the same old selfish whingeing, with never a thought for anyone else. Feminists think that they should have everything regardless of their circumstances or their choices. But these are the immature whinings of little girls who want to have their cake and eat it, and who shriek frenziedly, 'Not fair', whenever they are told that they can't have it both ways. But little girls need to grow up. And when little girls become bigger girls they also need to learn about hormones - you know, the chemicals that cause some 3.5 million women in this country to behave aggressively and irrationally, every month. Well, men have a powerful hormone inside their bodies too? It's called testosterone. And men's bodies start producing high quantities of this at around puberty and thereafter. Testosterone (as women who have taken it regularly will tell you) is known to dramatically increase the sex drive and the tendency toward aggression. It also powers strong drives for achievement and infuses the body with stamina and energy. Couple this with a man's characteristically focused mode of thinking, and bang, you've got a human being who is very determined to get to wherever he is going. Now, women have testosterone too. Some more than others. But, statistically speaking, men have far more of the stuff. So, we have yet another reason why men, statistically, will beat the women hands down when it comes to the race to the top. But, it's not just at the top where men will earn more money. Statistically speaking, they can also do harder and more dangerous work. Miners required for 12-hour shifts in filthy, dangerous pits. £500 per week. Strength and stamina required. Dangers include mine collapse, poisonous gas and lung disease. Statistically speaking, how many women could do this job as well as men? How many would want to? Surely the EOC doesn't expect men who work in difficult and dangerous conditions to get paid the same as school dinner ladies? Of course not. But the EOC continues to excrete its poisonous twaddle whenever it can, and it forever tries to stir up the anger of UK women against its men by twisting the truth about gender and pay. It is a dishonourable organisation that ferments further misery and unhappiness throughout the country. Needless to say, the EOC is run by feminists, and, as is typical of feminists, they seem completely unable to appreciate the fact that there are clear differences between men and women, statistically speaking. This complete failure on their part makes it impossible for our country to benefit at all from their continued presence. And by preserving this prejudiced, unintelligent body, the government is not only wasting huge resources but it is funding a regular source of false, hysterical propaganda that is harming the nation's psychological well-being as well as creating employment strategies and structures that are absolutely bound to fail. Now, we all know that feminists are full of anger and resentment at the undoubted statistical superiority of men in most areas of employment, but they should take some comfort from the fact that a statistical difference between the two sexes does not mean that every man will be superior to every woman. Just like with height, while it is true that, statistically, men are taller than women, there are, nevertheless, millions of women who are taller than millions of men. Statistically, however, men are taller. And similarly, statistically, for the reasons given above, and for other reasons, they will rise to far higher incomes. Now the feminists at the EOC may not like the fact that, for example, men have higher levels of energising testosterone while women have higher levels of hormones that debilitate them every month, statistically speaking; but there we are. It's a tough old world, isn't it?
USA Why aren't more women running the world? Because the best and brightest are choosing not to - and in increasing numbers. Sally Pipes USA The feminist revolution that swept the United States in the 1970s promoted the dream of a land in which at least half of all corporate officers, Fortune 500 CEOs, partners in law firms and doctors would be women. But a funny thing happened on the way to achieving that promise. Feminism was mugged by the reality that most women don't seek those goals. Phyllis Schlafly UK Many working mothers long for fulltime motherhood, new research from Mother & Baby magazine suggests. + UK More than nine out of 10 of the girls believe it should be up to their husbands to provide for them. "According to a survey of 5,000-plus teenage girls, their main ambition is to complete university then return to the homestead - whether their partners like it or not." Benbow and her colleagues have reported consistent sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability that favor males. In mathematically talented youth, the differences were especially sharp at the upper end of the distribution, where males vastly outnumbered females. The same has been found for the Putnam competition, a very demanding mathematics examination. Benbow argues that these differences are not readily explained by socialization. |
|
| | << Start < Prev 1 2 3 Next > End >>
| | Results 1 - 10 of 23 |
|
|
Home 
