The popular website TechCrunch recently promoted more male discrimination in the workplace with its article "No Boys Allowed, Women Innovate Mobile Accelerator Is Just For Women". The article advertised the formation of a new accelerator program called Women Innovate Mobile (WIM). This program was founded by three business women. Its purpose is to give women high salary jobs in technology.
WIM will start off small, offering two to five new mobile technology companies funding of $18,000, plus mentoring, support, and free office space in New York during the course of its initial program. However, a female must be the founder and in control of the new company. WIM has already attracted support from Bank of America and Forbes.
WIM’s Managing Director said females "remain severely underrepresented among mentor-driven accelerator programs. That’s why we developed an accelerator program just for women-led mobile ventures.” WIM claim's their program will provide another alternative to help the United States build companies and jobs. What she didn't mention is that the high paying jobs will be mainly for women.
The WIM representative also didn't mention that females are severely underrepresented as child support payers. However, no business women have formed a program to promote more women paying child support to their ex husbands.
The workplace discrimination policies of WIM are strikingly similar to the anti male student polices of America's corporate world. In the US, large corporations such as Walmart, Home Depot, Starbucks, Pfizer, Coldwell Banker, JP Morgan, Prudential and The General Electric Company donate hundreds of thousand of dollars every year to education grant programs with the stipulation the student cannot be male. This is one of the primary reasons why women outnumber men in higher education. Females students have more financial aid available to them. WIM's long range intention is to reproduce in the workplace the gender biased policies of American education.
WIM represents classic feminist double standard. Gender based programs designed to promote women into high paying jobs are considered good and even promoted by media outlets like TechCrunch. However, gender based programs designed to promote men into high paying fields, such as Nursing, are considered discriminatory. Additionally, gender based programs designed to help men gain equal access to higher education are considered illegal. Lastly, feminist have no programs designed to advance women into low paying, dirty jobs such as trash collector - despite the fact women are very underrepresented in this field.
Feminist strategy is to hand women more high paying "cushy" jobs. The low paying, dirty jobs shall remain mostly male.
Although WIM is only one small company, others will no doubt follow using the same female chauvinist (i.e. feminist) logic.
Feminists continuously form groups which emphasize gender as the primary determining factor for advancement.
Jezebel: Daughters Are Better Than Sons
The women's website "Jezebel.com" (ranked by Alexa Internet as a popular site worldwide) recently advocated increasing parents preference for daughters and decreasing their desire for sons. (Note: There is no shortage of girls. Most western countries have slightly more women than men. In fact, most countries of the world are close to a 1:1 male/female ratio).
In its article titled "Can Parents Be Convinced To Want Baby Girls" Jezebel stated "Anya Kamenetz {writing for Fast Company Magazine} ponders whether the global preference for male children could be budged with a well-thought-out ad campaign touting the benefits of female children ...One ad, produced by a group of female ad executives, claims that baby girls are better at collaborating, communicating and empathizing and thus will be the leaders of tomorrow. Another claims that a baby boy is 76% more likely to set something his parents own ablaze."
Kamenetz remarked: "In the 21st century, there's a compelling case for girls as the equal— and, in some cases, optimal— gender for roles in leadership, innovation, and economic growth. Women excel in education, the most crucial factor in tomorrow's workforce and women are more likely to have a balanced, empathetic leadership style, better communication skills, a knack for fostering innovation through collaboration".
If women are such empathetic leaders then why do most female politicians support paternity fraud and its resulting exploitation of husbands? Also, notice how female executives cooperated to create an ad stereotyping children. Thats innovative leadership? Its more like narrow minded arrogance. Additionally,women excel in American schools largely as a result of the AAUW (a women's group) reorganizing education so that girls have more academic assistance, more financial aid and more classes designed to appeal to them rather than boys. What happened to women's alleged balanced leadership style? Lastly, the fact both Kamenetz and Jezebel consider females the "optimal gender" for roles in leadership clearly shows a gender bigoted mentality that is equivalent to 1920's Alabama thinking which viewed whites as the optimal race.
Jezebel also said the "US Justice Department states 91% of rape victims are female and 99% of rapists are men."
This appears to be a 1999 statistic calculated by the University of California. Additionally, very few men are actually rapists. Finally, 100% of paternity fraud is committed by women and the vast majority of rape fraud is also committed by women. These facts makes Jezebel's insinuation that women are good while men are bad a complete female chauvinist farce. Both men AND WOMEN commit bad acts.
Lastly, the website summarized its views of males as "one bad man is capable of covering a lot of ground and hurting a lot of people". True, but so can one bad woman.
The sexist writers of this website judge people on the basis of their gender rather than their actions. And the mass of women viewing the website are no better.
One comment on this article signifies the response of virtually every single female reader. "Yeah, I don't understand this at all. Because the fact is that boys are much more likely to bully, to use drugs, to be violent, to go to jail. People way over glamorize boys."
Jezebel's article intended to prove women - not men - are open minded, sympathetic and innovative leaders therefore daughters are better than sons. Instead, Jezebel proved some women are narrow minded, egotistical jackasses.
In its article titled "Can Parents Be Convinced To Want Baby Girls" Jezebel stated "Anya Kamenetz {writing for Fast Company Magazine} ponders whether the global preference for male children could be budged with a well-thought-out ad campaign touting the benefits of female children ...One ad, produced by a group of female ad executives, claims that baby girls are better at collaborating, communicating and empathizing and thus will be the leaders of tomorrow. Another claims that a baby boy is 76% more likely to set something his parents own ablaze."
Kamenetz remarked: "In the 21st century, there's a compelling case for girls as the equal— and, in some cases, optimal— gender for roles in leadership, innovation, and economic growth. Women excel in education, the most crucial factor in tomorrow's workforce and women are more likely to have a balanced, empathetic leadership style, better communication skills, a knack for fostering innovation through collaboration".
If women are such empathetic leaders then why do most female politicians support paternity fraud and its resulting exploitation of husbands? Also, notice how female executives cooperated to create an ad stereotyping children. Thats innovative leadership? Its more like narrow minded arrogance. Additionally,women excel in American schools largely as a result of the AAUW (a women's group) reorganizing education so that girls have more academic assistance, more financial aid and more classes designed to appeal to them rather than boys. What happened to women's alleged balanced leadership style? Lastly, the fact both Kamenetz and Jezebel consider females the "optimal gender" for roles in leadership clearly shows a gender bigoted mentality that is equivalent to 1920's Alabama thinking which viewed whites as the optimal race.
Jezebel also said the "US Justice Department states 91% of rape victims are female and 99% of rapists are men."
This appears to be a 1999 statistic calculated by the University of California. Additionally, very few men are actually rapists. Finally, 100% of paternity fraud is committed by women and the vast majority of rape fraud is also committed by women. These facts makes Jezebel's insinuation that women are good while men are bad a complete female chauvinist farce. Both men AND WOMEN commit bad acts.
Lastly, the website summarized its views of males as "one bad man is capable of covering a lot of ground and hurting a lot of people". True, but so can one bad woman.
The sexist writers of this website judge people on the basis of their gender rather than their actions. And the mass of women viewing the website are no better.
One comment on this article signifies the response of virtually every single female reader. "Yeah, I don't understand this at all. Because the fact is that boys are much more likely to bully, to use drugs, to be violent, to go to jail. People way over glamorize boys."
Jezebel's article intended to prove women - not men - are open minded, sympathetic and innovative leaders therefore daughters are better than sons. Instead, Jezebel proved some women are narrow minded, egotistical jackasses.
November 30, 2011
The Hypocrite Wife and Happiness
A new book "The Secret Lives of Wives" by Iris Krasnow is being touted as a guideline for happy marriages. The book has been promoted by outlets such as The Today Show, CBS, The Huffington Post, Psychology Today and many others. Its philosphy is based on female double standard.
For example, the book emphasizes a wife should establish a strong, separate identity from her husband. She should create her "own space” and have freewheeling adventures away from the family where she can act “unmom”. However, happy relationships do not require women permitting their husbands the same freedoms. He doesn't need freewheeling adventures nor his "own space". This is why a husband is often criticized as being neglectful whenever he does any activity independent of his wife.
Additionally, the book insists a woman maintain a tight circle of girlfriends. This allows her an escape hatch from the challenges of marriage. However the hypocritical guidelines see no marital benefit for a man maintaining his friendships. Many women considered it demeaning if he needed an escape valve.
The author also emphasizes a married woman should increase her contacts with other men. For example, Krasnow credits her close relationships with her male buddies for some of her marital stability. She says, though not sexual, another man is fun to talk or flirt with. He is somebody to email after having a fight with your husband. Having a male flirtation can strengthen the marriage. Krasnow calls them "boyfriends with boundaries".
However, in classic hypocrisy, husbands having "girlfriends with boundaries" are unnecessary for marital stability. Flirting with other women is not seen as a way of strengthening the relationship.
The book goes even further and presents women who claim cheating on your husband can improve the marriage. One stated “If you avoid getting caught, a little affair can perk up a marriage,”. Another stated “My husband is only capable of doing so much, and it’s not enough,”. A different cheating wife said "A husband is your costar and a rock in your life. But if you’re a multidimensional person, you need a lot of different colors on your palette.” Promoting this aspect of the book, The Huffington Post linked to an article discussing Susan Shapiro Barash, a gender studies professor at Marymount Manhattan College. Ms Barash believes a wife's affair "is always about what’s missing from a marriage." The affair is the husband's fault & Barash claims cheating can empower women, raise their self esteem and allow them to renegotiate their marriage.
However, if these women's husbands begin having affairs of their own, Barash judges it differently. She believes it insults women. This is the mentality of a NARROW MINDED, FEMALE CHAUVINIST PIG - in other words a feminist.
The cheating women presented by Krasnow have this same mindset. They justify their affairs using an array of excuses. However, these hypocrites still demand their husbands remain faithful. It is considered sacrilegious if these men begin having affairs of their own.
Krasnow's book is misnamed. A more accurate title for her book would have been "Why Men Dont Get Married". They don't want to waste their life with a hypocrite wife.
For example, the book emphasizes a wife should establish a strong, separate identity from her husband. She should create her "own space” and have freewheeling adventures away from the family where she can act “unmom”. However, happy relationships do not require women permitting their husbands the same freedoms. He doesn't need freewheeling adventures nor his "own space". This is why a husband is often criticized as being neglectful whenever he does any activity independent of his wife.
Additionally, the book insists a woman maintain a tight circle of girlfriends. This allows her an escape hatch from the challenges of marriage. However the hypocritical guidelines see no marital benefit for a man maintaining his friendships. Many women considered it demeaning if he needed an escape valve.
The author also emphasizes a married woman should increase her contacts with other men. For example, Krasnow credits her close relationships with her male buddies for some of her marital stability. She says, though not sexual, another man is fun to talk or flirt with. He is somebody to email after having a fight with your husband. Having a male flirtation can strengthen the marriage. Krasnow calls them "boyfriends with boundaries".
However, in classic hypocrisy, husbands having "girlfriends with boundaries" are unnecessary for marital stability. Flirting with other women is not seen as a way of strengthening the relationship.
The book goes even further and presents women who claim cheating on your husband can improve the marriage. One stated “If you avoid getting caught, a little affair can perk up a marriage,”. Another stated “My husband is only capable of doing so much, and it’s not enough,”. A different cheating wife said "A husband is your costar and a rock in your life. But if you’re a multidimensional person, you need a lot of different colors on your palette.” Promoting this aspect of the book, The Huffington Post linked to an article discussing Susan Shapiro Barash, a gender studies professor at Marymount Manhattan College. Ms Barash believes a wife's affair "is always about what’s missing from a marriage." The affair is the husband's fault & Barash claims cheating can empower women, raise their self esteem and allow them to renegotiate their marriage.
However, if these women's husbands begin having affairs of their own, Barash judges it differently. She believes it insults women. This is the mentality of a NARROW MINDED, FEMALE CHAUVINIST PIG - in other words a feminist.
The cheating women presented by Krasnow have this same mindset. They justify their affairs using an array of excuses. However, these hypocrites still demand their husbands remain faithful. It is considered sacrilegious if these men begin having affairs of their own.
Krasnow's book is misnamed. A more accurate title for her book would have been "Why Men Dont Get Married". They don't want to waste their life with a hypocrite wife.
October 24, 2011
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)