James Damore Confronts The Hags of High Tech (& Loses)

Affirmative Action, Business, Feminism, Gender, Political Correctness, Technology

NEW COLUMN: “James Damore Confronts The Hags of High Tech (& Loses)” is the current column, now on Townhall.com. An excerpt:

Of the many men who toil in high-tech, few are as heroic as James Damore, the young man who penned the manifesto “Google’s Ideological Echo Chamber.” In it, Damore calmly and logically exposed the tyrannical ideological edifice erected to perpetuate the myth that, in aggregate, women and men are identical in aptitude and interests, and that “all disparities in representation are due to oppression.”

 …

… In high-tech, almost nothing is as politically precious as a woman with some aptitude. There’s no end to which companies will go to procure women and help them succeed, often to the detriment of technically competent men and women who must do double duty. Their procurement being at a premium, concepts such as “sucking it up” and soldiering on are often anathema to coddled distaff.

A woman in high-technology can carp constantly about … being a woman in high-tech. Her gender—more so than her capabilities—is what defines her and endears her to her higher-ups, for whom she’s a notch in the belt.

While male engineers—and, indubitably, some exceptional women—are hired to be hard at work designing and shipping tangible products; women in high tech, in the aggregate, are free to branch out; to hone a niche as a voice for their gender.

Arisen online and beyond is a niche-market of nudniks (nags): Women talking, blogging, vlogging, writing and publishing about women in high-technology or their absence therefrom; women beating the tom-tom about discrimination and stereotyping, but saying absolutely nothing about the technology they presumably love and help create.

Young women, in particular, are pioneers of this new, intangible, but lethal field of meta-technology: kvetching (complaining) about their absence in technology with nary a mention of their achievements in technology.

The hashtag “MicrosoftWomen” speaks to the solipsistic universe created by females in high-tech and maintained by the house-broken males entrusted with supporting the menacing matriarchy. Are these ladies posting about the products they’ve partaken in designing and shipping? Not often. Women in high-tech are more likely to be tweeting out about … being women in high-tech. Theirs is a self-reverential and self-referential universe. …

… Read the Rest. The complete column, “James Damore Confronts The Hags of High Tech (& Loses),” is now on Townhall.com.

This column can be read also on Unz Review,  Daily Caller, American Thinker, and others, where The Mercer Column usually appears. And it’s always posted, eventually, on IlanaMercer.com, under Articles. Please share.

Neoconservatives Will Love Sebastian Gorka’s Hyperventilation About A Hyperpower

Bush, Conflict, Donald Trump, Foreign Policy, Neoconservatism, War

Tonight, watch your favorite Fox News neoconservative. Chucky Krauthammer, Brian Kilmead and other neocons will be wallowing in the “greatness” of Sebastian Gorka’s hyperventilation about the US being a hyperpower.

“Don’t test American, and don’t test Donald J Trump”.
“We are not just a superpower,” Mr Gorka said. “We were a superpower, we are now a hyperpower … The message is very clear: Don’t test this White House.”
The word “hyperpower” refers to a nation that dominates in all areas, from economics and military might to cultural attitudes and language. The term was first popularised by French Foreign Minister Hubert Vedrine in 1999, when he suggested that the US had become a unilateral power that needed to be controlled.

Shades of DC operative Karl Rove, Bush II’s main man. Rove declared this during that “wonderfully” “vital” excursion into Iraq: “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality.”

UPDATED: Kippah Or Hijab, The Statue of Liberty Is NOT A Symbol Of Immigration Or Immigrants

America, Conservatism, Free Speech, History, IMMIGRATION, Liberty, Logic

Some Democrat, Rep. J. Luis Correa, hung a painting in his office of the Statue of Liberty wearing a hijab.

Conservatives are outraged. Some, like Ms. Pamela Geller, say the “Painting Is Offensive to Every Immigrant Fleeing Sharia Oppression.”

But consider: Would the Statue of Liberty wearing a kippah be more correct, less offensive? What about the Statue of Liberty draped like a Buddhist monk?

The philosophically correct point should be that the Statue of Liberty isn’t a symbol for immigrants or of immigration; it’s an American symbol. It should take on no foreign garb, however philosophically appropriate an immigrant may think his traditional dress is.

Of course, freedom of speech means you draw whatever floats your boat.

UPDATE (8/11): Facebook thread.

Comments Off on UPDATED: Kippah Or Hijab, The Statue of Liberty Is NOT A Symbol Of Immigration Or Immigrants

Written by on

The Closest We’ll Get To A W A L L Is A W A R. With North Korea

Donald Trump, Foreign Policy, John McCain, War

Tuesday, President Donald Trump warned: “North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States. They will be met with fire and fury like the world has never seen.”

For his reckless threat against North Korea, President Trump was castigated by John McCain—composer of the jingoistic jingle, “Bomb, Bomb, bomb Iran,” whose favorite word in the dictionary is “war.” Pot. Kettle. Black:

McCain said he was unsure if that rhetoric constituted a threat of military action, but said that most previous presidents wouldn’t make a threat unless they were ready to act.
“I don’t know what he’s saying and I’ve long ago given up trying to interpret what he says,” the Senator told KTAR. “It’s not terrible but it’s kind of the classic Trump in that he overstates things.” He noted, however, that Trump’s remarks could be pivotal in escalating a confrontation with North Korea, which could ultimately endanger South Korea in what he said could be a catastrophic scenario.

The governor of Guam, a sensible man, was more concerned about “Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) [an awful man] for apparently being open to an all-out conflict in the western Pacific. Graham said on CBS News that he does not want a war with North Korea, but ‘if there’s going to be a war, it’s going to be in the [Pacific] region.'”

“As far as I’m concerned, as an American citizen, I want a president that says that if any nation such as North Korea attack Guam, attack Honolulu, attack the west coast, they will be met with Hell and fury,” said [Eddie Calvo].

So far, it looks like the closest we’ll get to a W A L L is a W A R. With North Korea.