Boy crisis, I don’t think so

We seem to be hearing a lot about the boy crisis.  It seems there are not as many boys going to university and getting degrees like there are amongst girls.

It seems boys don’t do as well as girls in school.

So does this mean feminists have officially gone too far concerning education and now we need to concentrate on the needs of boys?  Which is something frequently called for by MRAs.

Some feminists may say that the reason for this is that girls are more intelligent then boys. 

I personally don’t buy this. In fact I find this a rather insulting thing to say.  Yet I don’t see a boy crisis at all and if there is one it is caused exclusively by male domination and has nothing to do with feminism and the empowerment of girls.

Let’s go back in time and remember that not to long ago education was the sole domain of the white male.

If you walked onto a university campus you would only see white males.  Women where banned from going to university after all why would a woman need an education anyway.  Her sole responsibility was to serve the male by washing his clothes, making his dinner, satisfying him sexually.  Does she really need a degree for this?

Fortunately feminists put up a great fight and made many sacrifices which started seeing women finally being able to enter universities.  Despite getting access they still had many barriers and hardships to overcome, but because education was such a big and continues fight for women it became something very important to them. 

Unlike the boys who where simply handed an education because they were boys girls had to really fight for it.

Because the white male dominated society laughed at and mocked women trying to get an education it made women all the more determined to achieve greatness.

When leaving university white boys were guaranteed all the top jobs irrespective of how well they had done with their education.

The same could not be said of the women.  Everyone knows that a woman has to work twice as hard if not even three times harder then a man just to be considered competent. 

Education for white boys is just part of white male entitlement much the same as walking in to top jobs.  So if it is going to be handed to you then why put in much effort

This could not be more opposite for women.  Women actually had to work if they wanted to make something of their lives.  They had to prove at university that they were not dumb idiots just because they were female and they genuinely needed the degrees to try and get into male dominated business.

Thus we can see that the so called boy crisis is directly related to male entitlement.

Note that most of those who are going on about the boy crises are white males.  It must have been great in the old days when white boys were not competing against girls or people of color.  Now it is a different story and many of these white boys’ fathers can’t strand the idea that girls, especially girls of color are out performing their sons.

The boy crisis is not because girls are more intelligent then boys or because feminist have feminized education, but rather because girls are prepared to work much harder then boys because unlike the boys there is no entitlement for the girls, just hard work and sacrifice. 

Claiming that there is a boy crisis is nothing short of racism and sexism.

"Here comes success!" Sexism???

I was watching some commercials from a few years back and came across this Cadillac commercial for Khakis which involves a female executive walking through the office to the song “here comes success” and causing all the male slackers to scurry away in fear.  I found it an extremely amusing and empowering advertisement.  In addition this advert was named by Adweek (an advertising industry publication) as one of the Best Spots of the Year 2006.

But in addition to all the good I also remember the anger it stirred up amongst the MRAs and men in general who branded this commercial sexist and humiliating to men.

Now I could of course go on about all the male sexism towards women and girls that we have had to put up with since the beginning of time and of course I could go on about how men have no trouble what-so-ever in humiliating women.  Which one could then argue that men are simply getting what they deserve. 

When I saw this ad for the first time, I most certainly did not consider it sexist towards men, in fact I found it empowering and uplifting for women. 

So my question is, is this ad sexist and demeaning to men as so many males consider it to be?

Let’s start off by having a close look at the ad itself.  Many males complained that it was only the male staff who were running in fear of this woman executive.  So let’s look at the women staff in the advert.  Here all the women seem to be receptionists and PAs.  Now don’t misunderstand me, I am not trying to run down these positions in anyway as these jobs can be quite trying at the best of times and are very important to the functioning of a business.  But like in most male dominated companies it is the women who are confined to the lowest of the lowest jobs in the company.  And I couldn’t help noticing that these women in the capacities as receptionists and PAs were actually working i.e. they were doing what the company paid them to do.

So if you are doing your job, why should there be a reason to run when the boss arrives?  Unlike the males whom many were loafing off.   

It is no secret that in many male dominated companies, it is the women who do the actual dirty work while the males opt for the golf course or a local strip joint, because apparently the golf course is where business is conducted and networking takes place, while the strip joint is for entertaining the predominantly male clients. 

So to all the males who complained about only males having to run, my answerer would be, why should the women run from her when they are actually doing what they are suppose to do.

Now let’s look at the males.  We can see that this is clearly a typical white male dominated company.  You can count the number of black men with only one hand and still have plenty of fingers to spare.

Our heroine walks past a boardroom consisting entirely of males who are trying to make a conference call, she walks past cubicles consisting exclusively of white males, and then she walks passed offices also consisting exclusively of males.  Clearly we can see that all the prominent positions are held by males.  Apart from our heroine it seems that no position of prominence/management is held by a woman, only men.

If men hold such important positions then you would be expecting them to be working very diligently but in this case they are all lacking off and doing everything that they are not been paid to do.

Would this then suggest that men have an expectation that they do all the delegating and women do all the work?  So if our heroine is proving to be a good boss she will make sure that all her employees are working for their salaries, not just the female ones.  In this ad we see a woman who refuses to accept male shit and expects them to do what they were employed to do, here we see a woman who has no problem in smashing (white) male entitlement. 

So now I ask you, is a female boss who expects male employees to work just as hard as female employees sexist?  Well I guess according to MRAs and their supporters she is. 

But let us not stop here.  If we look at the corporate world you would have to be living on another planet not to know that it is heavily dominated by white males, that women are constantly discriminated against when it comes to things like pay, promotions, employment etc, that women are frequently having to put up with sexual harassment and endure hostile male dominated environments. 

Getting back to the ad we can see that this company is no exception as we can clearly see it is a very male dominated company.  The song “here comes success” implies that this woman has entered a white male dominated corporate and made a huge success.  Despite all the male sexism she had to put up with she still made it.  The males where unable to keep her down and from reaching her true value.

This ad clearly empowers women.  It sends out the message that despite all the male sexism and harassment women face they can be a success and can reach their full potential. 

The problem we face is that we live in a male dominated world where everything revolves around the male.  In a male dominated world there is no uplifting of women there is only male privilege and arrogance.

Men, who hate this ad, hate it because it shows that women can rise above male privilege and arrogance and make something of their lives.  That women don’t have to exist for the exclusive pleasure of men.

These men hate powerful women and anything that helps these women obtain power is considered sexist, humiliating to men and just down right wrong.

And then there is the scene in the elevator close to the end when she gets in next to another white male who is made to look like he wet himself with fear when his pen in his pocket starts to leak.

It is quite obvious that he is completely intimidated by her.  Naturally the MRAs go to town on this creating the impression she is pure evil.

But in a white male dominated corporate the first thing that comes to mind is that he was most likely one of those males who tried to hold her down, stabbed her in the back, excluded her from important meetings so that she would fail and look like a complete looser, took the company’s male clients to strip clubs while she worked and made deals with them on the golf course white she was made to look incompetent.

Now through genuine hard work she has the power and he is terrified of what she can do to him.  The fact that she did not fire him and allows him to continue in his job actually shows that she is not the evil one.

I think what upset me the most about his ad is that so many MRAs and men in general went to town in making this ad look bad and so few feminists challenged them and showed how this ad can motivate and inspire women when it comes to male sexism.

If feminists are not taking a stand, is it because they believe that this ad humiliates men and does not empower women?

Stills from ad

Sororities announce new policy

By John Biberman

Published on Thursday, May 12, 2011

The eight presidents of Dartmouth’s Panhellenic sororities unanimously decided that their houses will boycott all social events held in conjunction with a fraternity in which a member has assaulted a female student if internal adjudication is not taken against the individual in a timely manner, Sigma Delta sorority president Danielle Levin ’12 said in an interview with The Dartmouth. The boycott, which will continue until the fraternity in question internally tries the perpetrator of the assault, was enacted following a violent incident at a fraternity’s physical plant on Saturday, according to Levin.
In a pre-scheduled Tuesday meeting between College President Jim Yong Kim and Greek organization presidents, sorority presidents encouraged fraternities to include clearly-established internal adjudication bylaws regarding violence against women in their organizations’ constitutions, according to Levin. The suggestion was met by a lack of enthusiasm from both administrators and fraternity presidents, Levin said.
Following the meeting, the sorority presidents decided to enact the boycotting policy, which was formalized in a document and sent to the Inter-Fraternity Council, Levin said. The sorority presidents’ Wednesday decision was influenced by the public act of violence that occurred at the fraternity in question on Saturday, Levin said. The fraternity had not informed the sorority presidents of any actions taken against the male student since the incident, according to Levin.
The violent argument occurred between a female member of the Class of 2013 and a male member of the Class of 2011 in the fraternity’s basement on Saturday night, Levin said. The female student threw a drink in the face of the male student — who was a member of the fraternity in question — and he threw a glass bottle at her in response. He then pushed her against the wall until other members of the fraternity pulled him away, according to Levin.
Levin said she did not know if the female student, who was also a member of a Greek organization, had been injured. The new initiative will apply to acts of violence against all female students regardless of their membership status in a Greek organization, Levin said.
Sororities have canceled all social events scheduled with the perpetrator’s fraternity, according to Levin. A letter was sent to the fraternity’s president alerting him of the new policy on Wednesday evening, Levin said.
IFC President Kevin Niparko ’12 said he disagreed with the assertion that fraternity presidents had not been receptive to changing their bylaws, citing active efforts by the IFC to promote dialogue on sexual assault.
Niparko is a member of The Dartmouth Senior Staff.
Fraternity presidents did not immediately support the sorority presidents’ suggestions during their meeting with Kim due to concerns as to whether a top-down implementation of bylaw changes could adequately address sexual assault, according to Niparko. He added that IFC members believe a grassroots effort to change campus perception of assault may be more effective.
Niparko said the house in question had been dealing with the offending member through the appropriate channels, and that the sorority presidents had not given the fraternity enough time to pursue action. He criticized the way in which the decision was made, calling it “a secret vote,” and said that he was disappointed fraternity presidents had not been included in the discussion of the new policy.
“When sorority presidents are unwilling to start a dialogue and converse with us, that contributes to the problem,” Niparko said. “We want to work with sororities to improve how sexual assault on this campus is handled.”
Several Dartmouth fraternity presidents declined to comment for this article.
Levin said the policy has long been considered, and that the policy was last suggested following an incident at Theta Delta Chi fraternity during Summer 2007. The Saturday incident presented an opportunity to enact the initiative, partially due to changing attitudes concerning sexual assault on campus, according to Levin.
“The decision was more than unanimous,” Levin said. “It was excitement. People walked out of there bouncing, myself included.”
Delta Delta Delta sorority president Janie Abernethy ’12 also applauded the change, calling it an “obvious move.”
“This has been a policy that sorority presidents should have been enacting for years,” Abernethy said.
Levin and Abernethy serve as co-chairs of the Student and Presidential Committee on Sexual Assault.
Levin said she knew of only two houses, Alpha Chi Alpha fraternity and Sigma Phi Epsilon fraternity, that currently include adjudication procedures concerning assault written into their constitutions.
Theta Delt bylaws include a "sexual assault action plan," Theta Delt president Will Mueller '12 said in an email to The Dartmouth. Alpha Delta fraternity bylaws also include formal internal adjudication procedures regarding physical and sexual assault, AD president Jason Zins '12 said in an email to The Dartmouth.
Levin also emphasized that any decision to boycott a house would have to be unanimous among sorority presidents and would have to be the result of a proven case of assault.
“The biggest argument against those who stonewall our cause is that the innocent shouldn’t be hurt,” Levin said. “We want to make this clear that we will not take this lightly.”
Levin said she regretted having to boycott the house involved, given Sigma Delta’s historically close relationship with the fraternity. Levin said she believed the house would take action because the members of the house in question were “even more angry about it” than the sorority presidents.
“We know that one brother’s actions aren’t indicative of the entire membership, but it’s still up to us to hold each other accountable,” Levin said. “We encourage them to use the power in their hands to fix it.”
While the Panhellenic Council and administrators — including acting Dean of the College Sylvia Spears — have been notified of the new policy, Levin said the decision to enact the policy was solely the product of the sorority presidents and their organization’s executive boards.
Epsilon Kappa Theta sorority President Claire Hunter said in an email to The Dartmouth that she represented the positions of the other Panhellenic presidents in her support for the changes.
“As presidents, we hope that this policy sends the clear message that it is not acceptable for organizations to delay their response to incidences of assault (of any kind),” she said.
Levin and Abernethy said the policy would not extend to encouraging individual members not to visit the house in question.
“Some of the failures in the past have been when [a sorority] has told individual members not to go to a house,” Levin said. “My purview only extends to what we do as an organization.”

END OF ARTICLE

Is this article for real!?  Do these sororities really believe that they can stop all the violence perpetrated by these fraternities?  I think not.

Obviously we must give these womyn their dues.  At least they realise that fraternities are a threat to womyn and are trying to do something about it which is a great deal more then I can say about many womyn and feminists I know.

But let’s think about this.  Fraternities are cesspools of white male supremacy who believe that woumyn are there to serve and satisfy every one of their sexist sexual male desires.

Despite that this sorority believes that it will boycott any fraternity that does not “internally tried the perpetrator.”  The joke here is “internally”  do these womyn not realize that fraternities are made up predominantly of privileges strait white males who believe it is their devine right to treat womyn like nothing short of shit.  The trial that these fucking sexist fraternities would perform would be one to congratulate the male asshole who was responsible for the crime.

Do womyn not believe that these fraternities are the problem?  If these fucking males are able to treat womyn so badly now how do you think once they have graduated and become captains of industry will they treat their wives, female employees and womyn in general.

Oh hang on you don’t have to think, all this disgusting violent male on females violence is currently happing all around us right now.

Males, especially white males have way too much power.  If we want to end this abuse of womyn then we need to see a huge transfer of power from men to womyn.

Suppose fraternities where put under the absolute control of sororities.  What would this mean?  Well for starters if one of the males mistreated a womyn then the sorority could have the male kicked out of the fraternity and even the university.  And if the fraternity as a whole opposed this then the sorority could have the fraternity dissolved and even have all the males kicked out of university as well.  If the crime was serious like rape or physical assault then not only will they have the males kicked out of the university but also have them arrested and locked away for a very long time.

If the womyn had this kind of power, the males would be too afraid to mess with the womyn and they would treat them with the respect that they deserved.

Men have abused womyn since the beginning of time, womyn have been living in fear of men since the beginning of time.  Isn’t it about time men got to feel what womyn have always had to put up with?  Isn’t it about time men lived in fear of womyn?

Boys' Clubs

I have often criticized feminists who are way too quick to embrace the very misguided view that women in the Western world have reached equality with men.  These very same people will tell you that there is nothing wrong with boy clubs as long as there is a female equivalent.

But my question here is how similar are boy clubs to girl clubs?

In my experience girl clubs are specifically designed to help empower women and girls for example a women’s only golf club would enable women who may very well feel threatened in a male dominated environment thus restricting them or even preventing them from reaching their full potential.  Many of these women who are so used to been put down and ridiculed by men would never even attempt to try something that is considered a male dominated sport.

Women’s golf courses and clubs would provide women with a space just for women where they can escape a male dominated world full of sexism, harassment, racism etc, to be able to relax, to get appreciated for who they are and not be ridiculed for just been women.  A place where sexism can be avoided and real friendships can be formed.

When looking at the equivalent i.e. a men’s only golf course or club, these males dominated institutions are not designed to enable men to escape the blatant sexism the men especially white males allegedly have to endure from women, but rather they encourage sexism amongst men.

Many white businessmen often will explain to you that playing golf with their white male clients is an important way of doing business.  Instead of actually working in the office, they will leave the real work to the women and head off to the gulf course where they will make business deals with their male clients.  Thus the women who are left at the office to actual do the work get left out of important decision making and miss out on important business networking opportunities which would definitely help them grow as business people.

At these boys clubs men not only ensure that women cannot grow business wise, but these clubs encourage sexism and even racism and women are discussed as nothing short of sex objects.

If women’s clubs help uplift women, while boys clubs encourage sexism and racism, we need to start asking ourselves, are boy and girl only clubs the same?  The answer is a clear NO.  Girls clubs strive to liberate women while boy’s clubs uplift male supremacy.

If we want to destroy male supremacy, if we want to liberate women, then feminists need to start seriously asking themselves, what should we do about the boy’s only club problem.  How should it be dealt with?

The following is an article written by Eric Holder that poses the questions “Do fraternities cause rape culture”

When reading this article a feminist should also be asking herself about Sororities. 

Fraternities may encourage a rape culture but sororities certainly don’t. 

If Fraternities cause a rape culture and oppress women, while sororities uplift women how can one say that the two are equal and that if sororities exist then it is only fair that fraternities exist?

“Odds are if you’ve spent time on a college campus you’ve heard warnings about “frats.” They’re testosterone-fueled groups of adolescent alpha males, and if you somehow stumble into their parties, watch out what you drink because there’s a good chance you’ll be drugged and assaulted.

The unfortunate thing is that this is one of those stereotypes that has a lot of truth to it. Studies have shown that men who are in fraternities are more likely to commit a rape then those who aren’t, and as many as 70% to 90% of gang rapes are committed by fraternity members.

The statistics are troubling, to say the least, and it’s leading the Wall Street Journal to ponder whether the time has come to shut down fraternities altogether: 

It is against this boorish cartel that 16 Yale students and recent alumni asserted themselves in a Title IX complaint brought against the institution last month—a complaint that could cost the university $500 million in federal funds.

The claim concerns both the ways that sexual assaults are handled by the university and also the effect that various fraternity “pranks” have had on its female students. The last straw for the complainants seems to have been a Delta Kappa Epsilon initiation last fall in which a mob of pledges chanted “No Means Yes! Yes Means Anal!” and other enlightening slogans. (Yale officials have said they do not believe the university is in violation of Title IX; they have also said the university will cooperate with a federal investigation.)

The horrifying part of it all is that, for the most part, fraternity members are allowed to get away with their absurd behavior, with people taking a “boys will be boys” approach to the whole thing while turning a blind eye to the darker assault-driven side of their behavior. People treat the rumors of frat house rape as just that; rumors that shouldn’t really be given much credence.

Rape is very much a part of college life, though, no matter how much we want to ignore it. Studies suggest as many as one in four college-age women are the victims of rape. A full 10% of these rapes are believed to have taken place in fraternity houses. As is typical with rape, however, very little of it gets reported, possibly as low as 10%, and in even fewer cases the perpetrator is ever brought to justice.

An important question following that setup is where do you draw the line? Even if you shutter every fraternity house across every college campus in the country, you still can’t stop groups of men from living together. Are fraternities themselves responsible for these higher rape numbers, or is this the ugly product of what happens when large groups of college age men are allowed to congregate with few rules or accountability for their actions?

Beyond the mere problem of fraternity group-think, there needs to be more of a culture of accountability surrounding sexual assault and the fringe behavior that puts people in those situations on college campuses. The ugly truth is that when there are no clear consequences people have a tendency to push things as far as they can, especially when alcohol is involved. When you have a social culture of friends that encourage this kind of horrific behavior it gets so much worse.

So what do you think? Obviously not every fraternity is full of misogynistic rapists, but do you think we should hold the whole Greek system accountable for the assaults that are ruining the lives of young women across the country? Or is the solution more difficult, in that people have to be held accountable for their horrible actions on an individual level so that college-age men finally see some tangible consequence for their reprehensible behavior? Tell us your thoughts below.”

Source: http://hypervocal.com/culture/2011/do-fraternities-cause-rape-culture/

Women really do need to wake up!!!!

Because we live in a society completely dominated by men, we are constantly been led into believing that we are finally all equal, there is no reason for feminism to exist, all the battles are over and it is now time for womankind to settle down and do what we are apparently so good at i.e. serving the mighty male in any way he determines.

Fortunately there are still some women left in the world who can see things for what they really are.  According to journalist Suzanna Moore it is time for “women to wake up to what has really happened” I couldn’t agree more with her.  It is so refreshing reading articles written by her that take on the sexist male dominated world instead of reading articles that justify it.  Because our media is totally male dominated it is no surprise that sexism is considered perfectly normal and acceptable.

Here is an article written by her for the Guardian on 30 April 2011

Quotas and women-only shortlists aren't popular, but they work

The push for equality stopped years ago. Women need to wake up to what has really happened

A year into the Tory coup, it is no great surprise that Cameron has the confidence to say in public what he really thinks. His "calm down, dear" remark to Angela Eagle clearly gave Gideon a cheap thrill. "Reactionary men think reactionary things," is not a shock. What is, though, is the view taken at face value that this is funny. It reveals the sense of humour of a 70-year-old guy trapped in the body of a 40-something. Icky! We look forward to some cutting-edge Benny Hill quips.
Nick Clegg winced during this discussion. He has his own problem with women. He can't get enough of them. If there there were an election now, on current polling there would be no female Lib Dem MPs, according to the Fabian Society. The men have all the safe seats. A party concerned with any kind of progressive politics has to be embarrassed about this. A party pushing for AV on the grounds we will end up with a more representative way of doing politics looks just daft if it cannot represent half of us.

As I keep saying, we are going backwards. The last election sidelined women as wives. As the Tories secure their position, there is an increasingly public anti-women rhetoric in situ. The mantra of conservative culture that "feminism has gone too far" is ringing in our ears.

Feminism acts as a convenient bogeywoman. It can even be blamed for the wrath of the gods of the free market. So it can blamed for everything from unemployment (Willets) to busting up families (Duncan Smith). We are a busy lot, as this is apparently a full-time operation. But in destroying what Tories hold dear, I want them to point to our great "gains", for when you look at the actual figures on the representation of women in public life for example, these gains are tiny.
The notion of even "the token woman" (PC gone mad!) seems to have evaporated recently. The AV campaigns have been pitiful. Newsnight excelled itself with a film about AV, which featured women doing pottery, whose husbands were going to explain it to them. Sweet. This was then followed by a discussion in which three squashed-up grey men argued with another three squashed-up grey men about fairer voting systems. In Scotland this was topped off by more argument about the constitution, which featured 16 men and not a single woman.
As in politics, so too in business. Given cover by the establishment, it is now perfectly OK to talk about the terrible "risk" of appointing women to the boardroom. The risk, of course, being that they might get pregnant. Some women can be intelligent, but don't worry yourselves about that. Simon Murray, chairman of Glencore, the largest commodities trader, floated at $60bn, offers us the benefit of his wisdom on women: "They have a tendency not to be so involved quite often, and they are not so ambitious in business as men because they've got better things to do." Such as? "Bringing up children and all sorts of things."
It must be our interest in all sorts of other things (Macrame? Meringues? Matriarchy?) that prevents half of the FTSE 250 companies having a single woman in the boardroom? Murray echoes Alan Sugar's remarks on the "problem" of employing women, which are seen by many as simply "realism".
Vince Cable then described Murray's comments as "unbelievably primitive" and talked tough, saying Murray had single-handedly made "the case for tough action to ensure that there are more women on boards and to ensure women's rights in the workplace are properly entrenched". Tough action? Oh Lib Dems, heal thyselves. Tough action means quotas, and you cannot sort out quotas in your own party because its structure means decisions cannot be imposed on local parties. Instead, the most under-representative party of them all has created a namby-pamby "leadership programme".
Quotas, women-only shortlists and any form of positive discrimination are often disliked equally by men and women, but they work. The alternative is waiting for the great promised land of meritocracy to start. I'd give it time. We are in fact still operating in the realms of hundreds of years of male-only shortlists and men giving people that remind them of themselves (other men) promotions. Rwanda has a bigger proportion of women in its parliament then we do. At the current rate of success the Fawcett Society estimates it will take Labour 20 years to get to 50% female candidates, the Lib Dems 40 years and the Tories 400.
The business community is also terrified of quotas, though Norway and Spain use them, and France is on the way. The great fear is that jobs will be given to less talented women, simply to make things look good. What is needed, all agree, are more enlightened attitudes. But quite where these enlightened attitudes are to come from is something of a mystery. Surely they come about by a change in culture, whereby men and women work alongside each other?
The idea that low-"calibre" women (Duncan Smith on Labour's women–only shortlists) will push out presumably high-calibre men is everywhere. We certainly wouldn't want a bunch of low-calibre guys running stuff, would we? I mean, look at the amazing results the high-calibre guys in the banking system have achieved.
This is not about women being inherently better. To say that we remain under-represented in politics, business, law, the academe and most of public life is simply a fact. Many see that this fact needs changing, but also resist the methods by which such change might come about.
Feminism is, in the end, about choices for women. Those choices are not expanding any more. It's not all about being a high-flying executive. Indeed, many younger women, having seen their mothers' generation over-stretched, may well opt out of the having-it-all means doing-it-all scenario. Nonetheless, young women cannot assume that the rights won by their mothers' generation are extended to them. Especially in the field of employment. The push for equality stopped years ago. We have stalled. Women need to wake up to what has really happened.
Listen to Sheryl Sandberg addressing a conference at TED. Sandberg is Facebook's chief operations officer, and talking about the situation in the US, but it applies here too: "My generation, really sadly, is not going to change the numbers at the top. They are just not moving. We are 50% of the population, but in my generation there will not be 50% of women at the top of any industry." This is from a woman in her early 40s who is hugely successful.
This is the context in which we celebrate the marriage of a woman who works part-time to be available for her man. This is the context in which we are voting for a more representative voting system. This is the context in which equality has not been achieved, yet a regressive, conservative establishment is bearing down on women's rights. This is the context in which Cameron tells a woman to 'calm down'.
I say, do the opposite. Dears.

This is so true, but even when someone does try to fix something up, someone else will basically come and fuck it up.

Let’s look at the UK.  Or as I like to refer to it as the United White Cockdom is a nation completely dominated by white males.  Sexism and racism are common on all levels of society.   The UK government is completely controlled by white males, all laws clearly favor their selfish desires, no wonder crimes like rape, incest, women abuse are constantly on the increase and nothing constructive ever gets done to rectify them.

Based on this, I was totally infuriated when I read this article in the Daily Mail

Work experience at the Foreign Office? Not if you’re a middle class white male by Brendon Carlin.

William Hague was last night plunged into a row over new ­Foreign Office rules which ban white males from gaining work experience at his department.

The Foreign Secretary was challenged to explain why his ­official work placement schemes specifically ban white, middle-class males from applying for the £367-a-week positions. 

Under the tightly-drawn rules, only women, people from ethnic ­minorities and the ­disabled are ­entitled to apply for a chance to work at one of the great offices of state.

The placements give students a head start in the battle to win ­coveted jobs in the diplomatic service and  possibly rise through the ranks to  become an ambassador.Only one category of non-minority male applicants stand a chance – those whose families are poor enough to entitle them to qualify for a full student maintenance grant.

The bizarre ‘middle-class male’ ban came to light after Tory MP Dominic Raab was contacted by an irate ­constituent who tried to obtain work experience at the department.

Esher MP Mr Raab, an ­international lawyer who worked at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) for six years, said last night: ‘I am raising this issue on behalf of a ­disappointed constituent barred from even applying for Foreign Office work experience because he did not fit the social quota criteria.

‘We surely need to scale back the unfair political correctness of the last Government. But we will not end discrimination in our society by introducing it through the back door, which is what positive discrimination like this does.’

Mr Raab has now written to Mr Hague asking him to intervene and review the work placement rules.

The Foreign Office, which employs 20,000 staff in the UK and around the world, operates three work ­placement schemes:

• A summer development programme open to ‘talented individuals’ from black or ethnic minority backgrounds;
• A summer placement scheme for ‘talented students’ with a registered disability; and
• A university placement scheme open to female students, students from an ethnic minority background and students who come from a household with an income of £25,000 or lower.

Westminster sources last night said the programmes came about after Robin Cook, the former Labour Foreign Secretary, arrived at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office’s headquarters in Whitehall and was horrified to see so many former public schoolboys working there.

Last night, the FCO insisted the schemes were legal and were designed to appeal to students who might not normally consider a career in the FCO.

Hiring: The Foreign Office at Whitehall

A spokeswoman said: ‘This includes students from an ethnic minority background and those with a disability, as well as ­students who are in receipt of a full maintenance grant.’

The spokeswoman added: ‘People from these backgrounds are currently under-represented in the FCO.

'We believe that by having a more diverse and multicultural workforce the FCO is better able to represent British interests around the world.’

There was ‘absolutely no discrimination’ in the department’s normal job recruitment process, she insisted.

But in a later statement, the FCO said the work experience schemes would now ‘be placed under review’.

                                                                     Dominic Raab

Strait white males sit right on top of the hierarchy of oppression.  That means white males oppress all women, white gay men and people of color, but nobody oppresses strait white males.  These males believe it is their right under white male privilege to oppress whoever they desire.  Nobody would dare try and oppress a strait white male.

So finally someone in the UK foreign office became concerned, surely if white males are the oppressors, why would we want them having so much power.  Let’s start trying to give women and minorities some power as well so at least they may stand a fighting chance.

So they opened a development program aimed at women and minorities, knowing that if they did not specify women and minorities only, like everything else in the UK it would be overrun in no time by white males.

So what happens, some obviously privileged white male who has never experienced any form of discrimination in his life tries to apply but is told that he can’t because this program was designed to try and help uplift women and minorities.  This white male couldn’t believe that his white male privilege was been challenged in that he was not handed this position based entirely on the fact that he was a white male.  Fortunately for him, his government is completely controlled by white males.  So off he runs to his Tory MP Dominic Raab who is also a disgusting sexist, racist strait white male who firmly believes that white men are getting a raw deal out of feminism.

Now suddenly we are hearing that just because someone actually wanted to try and help women and people of color make something out of their lives by preventing the white male establishment from getting in their way. These sexist and racist workplace rules must be reviewed.  In other words, rules that were actually meant to help uplift women and minorities must be banned because under no circumstances can we dare to discriminate against the mighty white male.

White male Imperialism

When I read about the horrors that have been and still are being committed by the white male dominated US and UK armed forces in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan I feel sick.

These white males have no problem marching into someone else’s country, stealing its wealth, raping the local women and girls and causing as much destruction as possible.

White males have been doing this for centuries, just look at Africa.

If you think that these mostly white males are liberating the locals as they claim, then have a look at this picture of US marines resting in a mosque in Falluja, Iraq.  So much for showing respect.

Well if these white male assholes can’t show white women in the US any respect and continually strive to oppress them how could we expect anything different when they are in someone else’s country?

Yet when we see pictures like this one below we always think hero, never rapist, oppressor, terrorist?

One can only wonder how many women and girls these white male oppressor assholes

have raped or harmed with their superior white cocks.

  

Time to stop domestic violence

Here is an article from ExmaxHealth written by Robyn Nazar

Football Fan Rage: Increase in Domestic Violence After Loss

Football may be just as dangerous for women as it is for men. According to a new report, domestic violence rises 10 percent in the home towns of NFL teams after a loss. This revelation raises the question of how unexpected disappointment can affect the behavior of men towards their female partners.

Police Calls Increase After Unexpected Defeat

The National Institute of Health conducted a research study analyzing the amount of local police calls reporting domestic violence after an unexpected NFL loss. The researchers obtained data from 900 regular season games. They found that if the team was expected to win, but lost, the number of calls to the police reporting male assaults on domestic partners increased an average of 10 percent. The rise in police reports was double if the NFL game was between traditional rivals (20 percent) than if the game was between non-rivals (8 percent). The time period that appears to be the highest risk for violent behavior is within the final hour of the game or two hours thereafter.

"Our results suggest that the overall rise in violence between the intimate partners we studied is driven entirely by losses in games that matter most to fans," said David Card, Ph.D., one of the co-authors on the study.

The researches found no increase in domestic violence when the team was expected to loose or be close in score. There was also no indication of a decrease in violence if there was an unexpected win.

This is not the first study, however, to examine the increase in domestic violence and football. There is an ongoing debate as to whether or not abuse increases on Superbowl Sunday. One research study showed that this was true. However, this same trend is noted on every major holiday including July 4th and Thanksgiving.

Unexpected Disappointments and Violence

This study illustrates the possibility that unexpected disappointment could be one contributing factor to violent tendencies in men. However, this connection is not limited to sporting events. "Someone who gets a speeding ticket on the way home, for example, might also be more likely to act out in a way he would later regret." remarked Card. Therefore targeting programs to help men deal with sudden shifts in emotion may help prevent abuse towards female partners.

The reality is that domestic violence is a reality in our country each and every day. Nearly 6 million women each year are abused by a male partner and over lifetime it is expected that 1 in 4 women will be a victim of domestic violence.

 

The fact that domestic abuse is on the increase is because our laws are not pro-female at all.

Our law makers are predominantly white heterosexual males who are only interested in making laws that benefit them and have no desire or interest in actually creating laws that would stop male violence.

What sickens me is that so many girls and women are abused either by fathers, husbands or boyfriends but are too afraid to report the matter.  So the abuse just carries on until the woman is either killed by her male partner or decides to take her own like through suicide.

Even if a woman does report her male abuser and he gets arrested, she knows that he will be out on bail in no time and come back for her to make her pay for daring to report him.

This results in even more abuse whereby he forces her to withdraw the case if she is lucky.  If she is unlucky he will kill her.

And lets not forget how often women have to face their rapists or abusers again in court.  As if the first encounter wasn’t traumatic enough, now these women have to relive the horror.

What about a young 10 year old girl who is been abused by her father.  She will be too terrified to dare say anything.

Clearly the concept of been innocent until proven guilty does not work in this case.

When a man commits a crime against a woman he should be presumed guilty until proven innocent.

I propose that to protect women and girls we change the law.  So if this young girl or her mother is been abused by her father all she needs to do is pick-up a telephone, dial a number that she would have received from her school and report the situation.

The authorities would immediately arrive at the house and arrest the man.  Because he is already presumed guilty he will not be able to apply for bail.  This means that he will stay locked-up until his trial date, ensuring that he can cause no harm to his victims.

Even though I strongly support women’s shelters, what really makes me mad is, why is it that the woman and her children who have done nothing wrong must be the ones to flee their own homes and seek safety in these shelters.

If the man is denied bail, he will stay locked-up which means the woman and her children can stay in their own home knowing that their abuser will not be able to harm them.

As the man is already assumed guilty it will not be necessary for the girl or her mother to appear in court.  Only he will appear.

When it comes to white males, they always seem to get off on some technicality.  Thus, men who commit crimes against women will always we tried by a female judge and not just any female judge, but one that is a radical feminist and knows exactly what men are capable of doing.  This would guarantee a 100 percent conviction rate.

Obviously MRAs will start crying about this and start saying that women will make false claims to get at men. 

Well concerning the number of false claims vs. the number of reported domestic abuse cases (this does not even include the number of unreported cases) it is hard to see how that argument could be seen as anything short of sexist ramblings made by a male supremacist.

If we really want to protect women and girls then we need to start pushing for this type of legislation. 

Why have feminists grown soft?

I am constantly hearing that we don’t need feminism anymore and that women are no longer oppressed.  Yet at the same time I hear of countless women and girls getting raped on a daily basis.  Many young girls been raped by their own fathers, many women been raped by their own boyfriends and husbands.
Young underage girls and grown women forced into prostitution and pornography, all just to satisfy the sexual lusts of the male.
Then there is the ever increasing rate of domestic violence, homes are not safe for women.  What about the workplace?  Here to women face hostile male dominated corporates which often leads to sexual harassment. Even colleges are not safe from the oppressive male who seems to think that women are their purely to satisfy his sexual lust.

Just looking at this, how can anyone say that women and girls are free?

What really gets me is these Men’s Rights Activists (MRA), fathers rights groups and their male supporters who are constantly going on how men, especially white men are the most oppressed group of people on the planet. 

If we look more closely at these groups we will see that they are made up predominantly of white heterosexual males, the most privileged and oppressive group on the planet.

MRAs have done a fantastic PR job of convincing everyone, even many feminists, that white het males are the most oppressed and the main cause of this oppression is feminism.  They have created the view that feminism is evil and feminists are the cause of all the problems in our world.
Yes, clearly feminists are now oppressing these poor white het males.  So virtually overnight the most powerful oppressor is now been oppressed by women and girls.

As women are still very much oppressed today and are still been held down by the might male I can but only wonder how feminists got this power.

If white het men have all the power and privilege and continue to oppress women and girls, then what exactly are men’s rights?
Clearly it is the right for men to maintain their privilege and supremacy over women, it is their right to oppress, rape, abuse, use etc at their will.
It is their right to attack anyone and accuse them of been man-haters just because these people dare oppose the males right to rape and oppress. 

If I am going to be accused of man hating because I hate male supremacy and more specifically white male supremacy, because I hate rape, child abuse, the killing of women and the sexual exploitation of girls and women.  Then I wear the label of man-hater with pride.

Feminists need to wake-up and realize that men have no interest in treating women with respect; they have no interest in ending male privilege and supremacy.
It is time for feminists to see male supremacy for what it really is and start coming together to fight it.  Feminists also need to start educating the many women who have been totally brainwashed into believing such rubbish as that women and girls are there purely to serve the male, feminists are the true oppressors and that strait white males are been horribly oppressed. 

Its time for feminists to become angry and radical again.