Category Archives: Feminism

Feminist Onslaught On Silicon Valley

Affirmative Action, Business, Feminism, Gender, Law, Technology

Entire Human Resource departments are dedicated to dealing with women (and minorities) and their ongoing special needs and complaints in the private economy. In the high-tech industry, especially, nothing is as politically precious as a woman. There is no end to which a company will go to mentor a woman and help her succeed. But such things as “sucking it up” and soldiering on are often anathema to deluded distaff. (This generally means that “guys will do double duty.”) Heather Mac Donald, fellow at the Manhattan Institute and a contributing editor at “City Journal,” chronicles the manner in which one female repaid her professional benefactors. The tale of the litigious and troublesome Ellen Pao is hardly untypical:

A San Francisco jury late last week rejected a $16 million gender-discrimination lawsuit against a Silicon Valley venture-capital firm. This triumph of common sense, though, represents merely a minor setback in the feminist crusade against America’s most vibrant economic sector. The chance that Silicon Valley can preserve its ruthlessly meritocratic culture under a continuing feminist onslaught is slim.

In 2005 plaintiff Ellen Pao got an MBA’s dream job: technical chief of staff to John Doerr, a renowned senior partner with the venture-capital firm Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers. Kleiner Perkins was a pioneer in high-tech entrepreneurship, making lucrative early investments in Google and Amazon, among other giants of the Internet age. Mr. Doerr mentored Ms. Pao, treating her, as Ms. Pao put it in an email to him, as a “surrogate daughter.”

He recommended her for a prestigious fellowship at the Aspen Institute and advised Ms. Pao about her performance at Kleiner Perkins. But after she was promoted into the direct-investing track, her reviews from other senior partners worsened. She was difficult to work with, they said, and wasn’t succeeding as a junior partner. By 2011, Mr. Doerr was the only senior partner who believed that she should stay on at the firm. …

MORE.

The author, Ms. Mac Donald, does paint with too broad a brush when she mouths the mantra all conservatives are wont to mouth: “the market is the best antidote to discrimination. It rewards talent and penalizes prejudice.”

That’s a half-truth. The whole truth is that the market will reflect a bias toward productivity, explained in “Apartheid South Africa: Reality Vs. Libertarian Fantasy,” which in turn excerpts this from Into The Cannibal’s Pot:

THOSE HALF-TRUTHS AGAIN

“Free market economists (the only kind worth consulting) have long since insisted that the rational, self-interest of individuals in private enterprise is always not to discriminate. Arguably, however, the good economists, while certainly not wholesale liars as are their Keynesian counterparts, are still offering up a half-truth. Rational self-interest does indeed propel people, however prejudiced, to set aside bias and put their scarce resources to the best use. But to state simply that ‘discrimination is bad for business’ is to present an incomplete picture of reality. This solecism stems from the taint the word ‘discriminate’ has acquired. The market, by which we mean the trillions of capitalist acts between consenting adults, is discriminating as in discerning—it is biased toward productivity. Hiring people on the basis of criteria other than productivity hurts the proprietor’s pocket.” (P. 127.)

“Thus, we can be fairly certain that, absent racist affirmative-action laws, the market would reflect a bias toward productivity.

In other words, what the good economists are loath to let on is that a free market is a market in which groups and individuals are differently represented. Parity in prosperity and performance between differently able individuals and groups can be achieved only by playing socialist leveler.” (P. 128.)


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

More #WomenInTheMilitary Equals More #Welfare Programs

Feminism, Gender, Military, Welfare

Capt. Courtney Wilson was unhappy in her duties until the military “just threw resources at me,” she told Babbling Brooke, “news” anchor at CNN, a job description that entails promoting the notion that “We … want more women to enter the forces,” to quote Brooke Baldwin.

Waxed Wilson: [The military] stepped up and they gave me amazing resources there like do you want biofeedback, do you want to do yoga, medication, therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy, just threw resources at me and I could not be happier with the service that I received. It absolutely — it gave me my life back.

BALDWIN: Wonderful. That’s wonderful. We know that and want more women to enter, you know, the forces. So I guess what would your message be to women wanting to sign up today?

WILSON: I would say, be authentic. I think that I spent way too much time caring about what other people thought and what type of leader they wanted me to be rather than understanding that I was competent and I was good and to just be myself. I wish that I had been more authentic.

BALDWIN: Quickly, I know you’re out now. What’s next for you?

WILSON: So I actually started my own fitness business. And I’m going to Babson College in Massachusetts to get my MBA. So hopefully open up a nonprofit gym that focuses on young women, and just getting them to understand the value of fitness and see how strong they are and lo for that to be led by female veterans.

BALDWIN: I love that idea. I love that idea.

WILSON: Thank you.

BALDWIN: Captain Wilson, thank you so much. Thank you so much for your service to this country …

HERE.

Personally, I won’t be happy until my tax dollars go toward more than just “biofeedback, yoga, medication, therapy, cognitive behavioral therapy” for the women in the military. What about dolphin therapy? I hope we bought Captain America a pet as well.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

UPDATE II: Celebrity And The #Selfie

Celebrity, Feminism, Film, Pop-Culture

Less repulsive than Kim Kardashian’s preoccupation with selfie taking is the fact that she goes unchallenged when depicting her obscene, whorish narcissism as an attempt to come to terms with her body. “Be a little easier on myself,” as she puts it. Kardashian is as heroic as the females mocked in last week’s “Heroism Or Hedonism?”

A voice in the wilderness is the “iconic French actress Catherine Deneuve,” who reminds us that real feminine allure and mystic are not to be found in the “new generation of celebrities addicted to social media.”

“A star is someone who must show themselves only a little and remain discreet. With the introduction of the digital age there is an intrusion of everything, everywhere, all the time,” she said.

“We see a tremendous amount of people who are very famous, with millions of followers, and who have done absolutely nothing.”

“Heroism Or Hedonism?” made similar points with respect to true heroism: it is private and discreet.

Deneuve is on my short list of the few good things produced by France. So is Brigitte Bardot, Rene Guinot and the Musée du Louvre.

UPDATE I (5/11): More for the list: Victor Hugo, Gustave Flaubert, Ravel, Debussy, Degas, Monet, Chagall (not born in France), César Franck (also not born there), and many more. But you get the picture, and the use of humor (I hope) to make a point about a generally insufferable lot.

UPDATE II: Albert Camus, too, WAS WONDERFUL. He was born in Algeria but was French. The French dislike him and prefer that retarded, piece of rotting flesh, Sartre, who recommended ignoring Stalin’s gulag, so as to keep the morale of the workers’ of the world high. Yep. The French …


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Spinning A Web For Charlotte

Feminism, Gender, Hillary Clinton, Welfare

Charlotte’s Web is a darling children’s book, published in 1952:

The novel tells the story of a pig named Wilbur and his friendship with a barn spider named Charlotte. When Wilbur is in danger of being slaughtered by the farmer, Charlotte writes messages praising Wilbur (such as “Some Pig”) in her web in order to persuade the farmer to let him live.

A web of a different kind is the one being woven by Grandma Clinton in the name of Charlotte, her infant granddaughter, also the putative inspiration for Hillary’s presidential bid.

“Becoming a grandmother has made me think deeply about the responsibility we all share as stewards of the world we inherit and will one day pass on. Rather than make me want to slow down, it has spurred me to speed up,” she writes in the new ending to her 2014 book, “Hard Choices.” … The former secretary of state was expected to announce her candidacy for president “as early as Sunday,” according to NBC News sources.
Clinton’s only child, Chelsea, gave birth last September to a daughter, Charlotte.
Clinton said she is inspired to keep working to ensure that Charlotte and her generation are provided equal opportunities to live up to their potential.
“You shouldn’t have to be the granddaughter of a President or a Secretary of State to receive excellent health care, education, enrichment, and all the support and advantages that will one day lead to a good job and a successful life. That’s what we want for all our kids,” she says. (Today News)

Trust liberals to call this welfare-womin centric message original.

Here’s Hillary in one of the many Mao tunics she’s fond of wearing:

Mao Zedong:


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

UPDATE II: Alan Dershowitz On Making His Accusers Pay

Crime, Feminism, Gender, Political Correctness, Sex

You’d think that rape and false accusations of rape are a political cause and not crimes to investigate. Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz seldom comes up with obtuse, bad answers. But even this sharp civil libertarian ditched his initial forceful arguments from justice, when put on the spot about being falsely accused of sexual abuse. Two minutes and thirty eight seconds into this CNN interview, Erroll Barnett questions Dershowtiz as to what good it would do to jail the “troubled” women who had falsely alleged that Dershowitz and a host of other codgers sexually abused them. “What do you expect to get out of it,” asked Barnett facilely.

Instead of reiterating his initial, irate and forceful warning about the harm these habitual liars do to their victims’ reputations, standing in the community and finances; the need to punish such liars for their attempts to profit by siccing the law on their innocent victims—Dershowitz noodles on about the indirect harm a false accusation of rape does to real victims of rape.

UPDATE I: Dershowtiz did a good job until the end, of promising swift justice to this hussy. Then he waffled a bit. The crazy idea that these false accusers should not be punished was the CNN angle.

UPDATE II: Dershowitz is brilliant, hence his flawless delivery. He is also a lefty, hence his slight capitulation to the accuser.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint

Don’t Marry Warns Fred Reed

Family, Feminism, Gender, Sex

A doff of the proverbial hat to the editor of “Into The Cannibal’s Pot: Lesson For America From Post-Apartheid South Africa,” the illustrious Australian writer Rob Stove, who just sent me Fred Reed’s latest. It’s marvelous (except for the porn stuff; yuk). To the upstanding Rob, “Matrimony, Holy or Otherwise: A Movable Concentration Camp” sounded over-the-top wrong. Not to me. Guilty. Averaged out, old Fred is right.

Matrimony, Holy or Otherwise:
A Movable Concentration Camp
By Fred Reed

“If you are a young man, and contemplate matrimony with the love of your life, it is well to look at marriage from the standpoint of reason rather than sentiment. Men are, after all, male, and occasionally capable of reason. The first question to ask yourself is: Why marry? What would you gain? Would your troubles disappear? Would sex be better? Would food be more savory? Would you get tax breaks, enjoy more freedom? Do stock options come with marriage?

Is there any practical advantage at all?

For you, I mean. For her, the advantages are considerable, and the drawbacks few. Your salary will allow her an upscale house, something more important to her than to you, which on the odds she will get in the divorce. Marriage locks-in child support. Since men die younger, she will get to pick your bones. For her, it is a good deal.

For you, no. Marriage has one purpose only, which is to get her legal hooks into you. Do not forget that American women, under the evanescent ivory skin, are eternally adolescent spoiled brats, feminine as a wrestler’s jockstrap and primed, as soon as life’s inevitable shocks come, to blame men for their unhappinesses. That means you.

Do not dismiss the foregoing as clever cynicism. Nobody goes into marriage expecting divorce, but it comes very frequently, and she really does get the house and the children. In divorces, men lose. Your child support will be based on what the judge thinks you should earn—this is called ‘imputed income’—so that, if you are a stock broker, you cannot decide that you would rather work on a fishing boat in the Caribbean. If the judge thinks you may be a flight risk, she can confiscate your passport. Your wife’s lawyer may advise her to accuse you of sexually molesting the children. (So help me, this happens. In a divorce, the man wants to get out, the wife to get even.) You may be denied visitation.

In the eyes of the court, the children are her property, to be done with as she chooses. She may remarry with an Air Force colonel she met in a meat bar, and be stationed in Okinawa. So much for your kids.

She can ruin you at any moment. Can and, not unlikely, will. When the moment comes, you will be astonished at how much she knows about divorce law, how vicious she can be. In marriage, you are betting your future on the flip of a loaded coin.

The sensible conclusion is that you are better off single, building a career or whatever you want in life, and dating such flowers as drift by.

Should you marry, the pleasure will be fleeting. Remember that women work on the principle of bait, switch, and fade. From fifteen to, say, twenty-five, they are dreams afoot, cute, with perfect skin and aerodynamic lines. That is what you think you are marrying. Add five or ten years, ten or twenty pounds, and the lack of any reason to continue being charming—and you are going to spend the rest of your life with it. Too many men marry the package, and only discover the content when it is too late.

Matrimony is seldom a happy state in America. Given that something like half of marriages end in divorce, you can bet that a lot of others almost do. Of the remainder, probably more are contented than happy. Resignation is not pleasant, but often the best you can hope for.

Live with her if you must, but don’t marry her. A woman cohabiting has at least some incentive to be agreeable. A married woman does not. Worth pondering is that, in a time of declining economy, feckless government, and political instability, the fewer responsibilities you attach to yourself, the better.

The very idea of marriage is problematic. In many ways, men and women are incompatible. Exceptions and degrees, yes, but on average women are more domestic, materialistic, fearful, totalitarian, and comfortable with routine. This means that to the extent you have masculine interests, you will find her to be an anchor. This doesn’t mean only that she won’t like that awful motorcycle or that noisy Corvette thingy. She won’t want to live in a small condo in the funky part of town, go to the shooting range, or scuba dive.

It is said that marriage rests on compromises, but in fact it rests on concessions, and you will make all of them. You will find your social life gravitating fast to other married couples. She won’t want you to have single female friends (nor will you want her to have single male friends: Marriage is based on mistrust.). Worse, she won’t want you to have single male friends. She will want you where she can keep an eye on you. Forget going out with the guys. …”

MORE Fred On Everything.


like tweet google+ recommend Print Friendlyprint