Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login

 

 I just saw a BBC report stating that only 13% of women are in top jobs and only 15% are on business boards and ONLY 1 in 5 government officials are women; and this is being spun as some sort of systemic discrepancy: how? There aren't as many women in high positions in business and politics: so what? What does this prove other than that they're simply not there? The statistics only attest to two credible factors:1)the women numbered were interested; and 2)they got the job. You can't quantify whether their position was merited or not. You certainly can't make blanket assertions that there were just hordes of women, all qualified, all vying for the same positions that all got cock blocked by the sausage brigade. No. You can't make those kind of mindless lunges in logic.

 What is with this obsession that men and women need to be equal in business and government? Half and half on business boards. half and half in parliament and congress. It's not practical or rational: even if you get half and half...it's not gonnuh necessarily stop injustice or systemic bias? In fact it's kind of sexist to assume it's going to change much of anything at all! Changing the gender doesn't necessarily change the mind frame of the politician. Look at Sarah Palin, a.k.a. Miss 'Drill, baby, Drill!'. Condoleezza Rice being a woman and the Head of National Security  didn't stop the patriot act from happening: do you see what I'm getting at here? Let's apply this to the U.K. with two words: Margaret Thatcher. Case in point.

 Regarding Fiona's random statistic supported by "studies" rather than an actual listed source (you know, like a journalist would do.) about women getting more degrees than men, I have to beg the question: wwwhat degrees are the men and women going for? what're the rates of men to women attending college? Because last I checked, according to Dr. Warren Farrell's lecture in Toronto, 46% of college going students are male in the U.S. alone: so no shit the women are going to average more degrees come graduation. That's just common sense: even accounting for negligence on a case by case basis the odds are still in women's corner.

 

These are documentaries and lectures addressing the neurological distinctions between men and women and the politics of education:

*

 

 

  Concerning Currie's statement of 'We don't need a quota we just need more [women]", that is a brainless conception in its barefaced contradiction. One is a federalized mandate the other is a socio-political mania. The only one that makes one more attractive is plausible deniability, because there's not a specific number attached to it; but when you go into a job interview intent to discriminate based on gender, be it in the positive or negative, or are, in fact, establishing a quota. It's just one based on personal criteria that you don't have to hold yourself accountable to. It's privately maintained in your head; where you can safely waive away any accusations against it. Where personal scrutiny, most of all, can be quietly stifled and dismissed.

 Circling back to the hypo-feminist chitterings of Fiona Cowood, regarding, again, "studies" that board rooms favor people like themselves when recruiting...well, again, no shit: you're going to have similar interests in goals. It makes it less turbulent to communicate initiatives and propose economic stratagem. Just because these boards have a penchant for likeminded people is not indicative of a preference based on genitals. She's being sexist, assuming these majoritively male boards are basing their hiring partly on gender; and giving no data that suggests or proves it.

 And her last statement-- oh, that's the one that made me want to pay good money for a women to do a drive by punch in the face--the statement that "we've given men a chance to change things. They haven't done it." Yes, because if we just gave women the keys to the zoo everything would run clock smooth: who thinks like this, really? That the pratfalls of human history can be placed squarely at the feet of men? How do patently dumbass ideas like that register to the frontal lobe who goes 'yeah, that's viable.', formulates into words--which are then forwarded to the conscience for scrutiny; who says 'uh, yup, that's fair and balanced.' and then tumble irrevocably out of someone's mouth: and then these people act as though their shock is justified then the human populace face palms in unison. What if we changed the word "men" to Jews...wwwould anybody be okay with what she said? I think a couple of Iranian dignitaries would be cool with it but the rest of humanity would probably be upset.

 I am aware this video was titled 'Radical Feminist Claptrap From The BBC' but I honestly went into it skeptical of the all cap title. Frankly I just wanted to see if there was any justification for that kind of script: apparently there is; but regardless I didn't go seeking the link to witch hunt, but rather to see the validity of the accusing party. I have had feminist professors: I have seen feminist make valid points despite the inherent bias of the patriarchy narrative. I am, personally and foremostly, a journalist for my own benefit; and I do try to be thorough and fair.

 

*Speaking as one of the penis riddled members of the human race, I can explain very simply one of the many reasons men are opting out of school, especially in the lower grades. You see, men cannot produce children: ergo, we are not considered as valuable as women reproductively; and thus in society, traditionally and still, between a woman and a man, the man is expected to be expendable. We are very insecure in our identity as a sex in consequence; so we reinforce traditions and norms that affirm our value, usually through competition with each other: for this reason, there is nothing inherently masculine about competing with women. So when schools become extraneously or over feminized, removing all or demonizing the traits of men, suddenly school has no uniquely male value. Education no longer becomes a means of determining male identity: so, in consequence, we dismiss or become increasingly disinterested.

 I keep hearing about the superiority of the female brain in the fields of rhetorical expertise: that's because women evolved that way; because it was more genetically preferable for a woman to be able to communicated what she wanted. A woman who could do that and do it more effectively was more likely to be attended. This is also the reason why women are more sociable; because it benefited them to popularize their thoughts and feelings.

Add a Comment:
 
:iconlordmep:
lordmep Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2013  Hobbyist Writer

A series of excellent points. I was actually talking with someone about this a while back and she simply didn't seem able to hear what I was saying.

 

I have only one criticism. "Gender." It's a word invented by feminists to help them control the dialogue.

Reply
:iconcodyrush:
codyrush Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2013  Student Filmographer
Regarding the someone mentioned, just show her the videos. Those'll probably help her to see the problem.
Reply
:iconlordmep:
lordmep Featured By Owner Nov 20, 2013  Hobbyist Writer
Unlikely. We don't see each other enough.
Reply
:iconmike-the-cat:
Mike-the-cat Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
It is optional for women to do many things that are required for men to do, like work.
Reply
:iconcodyrush:
codyrush Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2013  Student Filmographer

I love that a woman has the viable life option of being a bum, leeching off someone else. Not all women can do it, or would; but the fact a woman can be swapped from daddy to husband with little to no dip in monetary means if she bags the right husband...that's just monstrously wrong.

<br / />

 Again, not all women are doing this: but to ignore the prevalence of hypergamy among women would be to do literacy a disservice.

Reply
:iconmike-the-cat:
Mike-the-cat Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2013  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I believe firmly in the idea of chivalry:  I treat women better than I treat fellow males.  I don't consider my mother a leech because she quit her job to raise kids.  That's not being a bum.  That's doing great work, work that more people need to do in order to influence the next generation for good.
Reply
:iconcodyrush:
codyrush Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2013  Student Filmographer
Stay-at-home-ma, huh? Oh, I don't have a problem with that. So long as she's holding up her end. I think there's been some confusion: I'm not against stay-at-home parents. I'm against women who latch onto a husband and then never iron a shirt or lift a finger to do anything that either benefits the house or her husband; because that's basically like being single, only forcing someone legally to pay your bills. That's horseshit. Also, what I hate, is when these women poison their children against their fathers for not giving them even more than they deserve, calling them "cheap", "lazy" or "not a real man".

 However I came from a gynocentric bread-winner family, two parents, six kids and three dogs. And I don't consider my mother a leech in every respect; but I do remark on the fact that she spends the money my father physically makes instead of only what she should make as his official accountant. Why should you make what you didn't earn? And if you did earn it, prove it? Submit to inspection and measurable standards of labor.

Reply
:iconcodyrush:
codyrush Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2013  Student Filmographer

Well, funnily enough, I don't. I think chivalry is a deplorable, backwards and chauvinistic concept that needs to be put in a hole six feet deep under cement. Because I'm an egalitarian: that means I don't play man-servant to a woman. I don't respect any woman automatically any more than any man, besides for being human' and when I do respect them more it's because they've personally earned it. Treat women better than yourself? Where's your self respect? Flip the genders, man. You know that you never expect any woman to think like that.  "Search your feelings, Luke: you know this to be true..." Any woman spouting the exact thing you but in the reverse would be slapped to her senses by her own kind. What could be flattering to women about throwing yourself and other men under the bus for them? What monster would consider that sweet?

<br / />

Reply
:iconironbatmaiden91:
IronBatMaiden91 Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2013
I agree with your first point. They've been given the opportunity to take it, and only a few qualify. The same goes for men. And some women simply aren't interested in it. No matter how much of an equal opportunity you give them, it will never truly be equal outcomes.
Reply
:iconcodyrush:
codyrush Featured By Owner 5 days ago  Student Filmographer
I never asked, but you said you agreed with the first point. Ir there's a part that you reasonably object, please share. This is an old journal and, while I won't revise anything (because I don't like rewriting my own history) I'm not opposed to understanding someone's point of view. Far from it. 
Reply
:iconcodyrush:
codyrush Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2013  Student Filmographer

I think you just liked "sausage brigade", because it sounds like a marching band at epcot. That's why I like it: makes me think of that nazi Donald Duck cartoon.

 I just get so fekking tired of people pointing at a lack of women as a sign of oppression first and a choice second: feminist are the worst objectifiers of women I have ever heard of.

Reply
:iconironbatmaiden91:
IronBatMaiden91 Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2013
It's so true. They make statistics out of them in cases like this.

But there are some cases where using statistics about them actually helps humanitarian causes.
Reply
:iconcodyrush:
codyrush Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2013  Student Filmographer
No doubt, but the positive utility doesn't outweigh the nefarious negative. I should show you guys my 'go dutch' essays. It's amazing how the minute money got involved in the sexism argument the gloves came off for some people.
Reply
:iconironbatmaiden91:
IronBatMaiden91 Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2013
I can only imagine.
Reply
:iconcodyrush:
codyrush Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2013  Student Filmographer

Oh, especially when I said if a woman thinks her company is somehow worth more than your's, meaning you have to give her, you know, something extra to incentivize her, then she's either arrogant or greedy or both. Any woman who thinks a man should pay automatically in the relationship is text book greedy, end of story. I mean, let's flip it around, what if I asked you to pay me directly for dating you? I mean, hand outstretched, saying 'fuck you, pay me!' for the privilege of my company? Company that you're, conversely, giving away basically for free? Wouldn't you consider that shameless money grubbing vanity?

I mean, I realize a lot of women don't understand that this is hypergamous and very greed-driven behavior; and a lot of them, most, would, if just reasoned with and shown their own behavior in a man, would figure out that that's wrong and never demand that behavior be humored  ever again. However I also understand that there's quite a few that...just think that's the way things should be. Because women are humans+, you know, the real human race. The one that matters. And that that means men have to pay for their time and attention. It's like a hooker using Orwellian doublethink to both deny and demand money for her company: it's hysterical.

 When I say "you", I'm just being using the thematic 'you', like "like I mean you can't just go into a place, roll a joint and start puffin' away: they expect you to only smoke in certain designated areas..." (name that movie!). You know what I mean? I'm not using 'you' in an accusatory way.

Reply
:iconironbatmaiden91:
IronBatMaiden91 Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2013
No I understand. Some want that have your cake and eat it too mentality
Reply
:iconcodyrush:
codyrush Featured By Owner 5 days ago  Student Filmographer
 It's still maddening to see women act this way. It's like they can't see--and men are just as bad--how dehumanizing and demeaning it is to automatically assume one party has to pay the other. 
Reply
:iconcodyrush:
codyrush Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2013  Student Filmographer

Some do. A lot do. At least that champagne asshole in the essay does; and she has women and men squawking in her comment section that's she's right.

She sat there, in front of that camera, batting her eyes and complaining about "cheap" dates clueless as to how to "treat a lady", meaning how to treat her to their net worth with no promise of letting laid. Sweetie, you're accompanying a man for his attention, time, goods and services...you know what that entails, right? You know what makes you, right? And you're not even a professional one, because a professional one...is a professional. A hooker knows exactly what she is; and what she's paid to do. What you want is for a man to pay for a potential door in his face: who the fuck would pay for that? Go dutch, you fucking bum.

<br / />

Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconrobbe25:
Robbe25 Featured By Owner Aug 31, 2013
I always thought quotas were BS... Don't get me wrong, everyone should have the same chances for a job, an appartment, a way of living. No one should be discriminated against because of gender, station (meaning lower, middle or upper class) or ethnicity. However, especially with jobs, you judged on your capabilities... Giving someone a job because of one of the aforementioned criteria (AND because a quota has to be filled) just doesn't work right.
Reply
:iconcodyrush:
codyrush Featured By Owner Aug 31, 2013  Student Filmographer

No it most certainly doesn't; and thankfully short lists don't exist in congressional positions in the U.S. I hope the additional interviews and lectures were insightful regarding the education crisis in America as well as the U.K. To me, the U.K. is the nanny state America is barreling head first into becoming: so I like to keep an eye on Britannia when I can. If nothing else it's fascinating to see the old Empire crash and burn so tragically. Just like the rest of us. My heart goes out to them.

  If you get a chance check out the lectures on my profile page. I think you'll find them quite diverting. Especially Hitchen's 'Why Orwell Matters' discourse at the Orwell appreciation convention.

 

 

Reply
:iconrobbe25:
Robbe25 Featured By Owner Sep 1, 2013
I'll check them out!
Reply
:iconcodyrush:
codyrush Featured By Owner Sep 1, 2013  Student Filmographer
Hitches is always good times. I did a journal entry a while back titled (I think) 'Richard Carrier: the first drafts of God' and 'Jesus: a fancy word for Bob'. Those also come with video discourses. The second was me, with my theological scholarship as a former priest, explaining that jesus was the Anglicized variation of Jehushua or "josh"; so really his name was so generic for his time that he basically was named Bob. Josh in Hebrew is incredibly common. If I recall it means "the lord is my salvation"; so suddenly it makes sense why it was so readily embraced as a name.
Reply
:iconrobbe25:
Robbe25 Featured By Owner Sep 2, 2013
Although I agree with Hitchens on several levels, I prefer Richard Dawkins... Hitchens always seemed to agressive for me, bordering on radical..

You were a priest?
Reply
:iconcodyrush:
codyrush Featured By Owner Nov 19, 2013  Student Filmographer
"Science...it works. Bitches."
Reply
:iconcodyrush:
codyrush Featured By Owner Sep 2, 2013  Student Filmographer

mmmyyyyesh. Went to seminary and everything in high school, then became a missionary/temple worker: and then I got the fuck out. Mormons are heavily versed in the King James and their own canon. They're trained at an early age and proselyte when they're 19 or in their 20's. Usually the later. My oldest brother did his deuce in Buenos Aires, Argentina; and my second eldest brother did a stint in Barcelona. My youngest brother did his in Appalachia by way of Kentucky and Virginia www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqDVOb….

 Every male member of my family's faith is a sanctioned priest. You start out a deacon (which is kind of like a souped up altar boy), and then you become a teacher and then, when you come of age (18) you're blessed and endowed with the authority of a holder of the Melchizedek priest hood, a.k.a. The priesthood of Jehovah. If you have any questions, I won't put you through some diplomatic bullshit rigmarole: I'll answer anything you ask with straight responses. I understand the Mormon faith better than most and it's not as bizarre as people make it out to be. Actually, it's only Christians that really turn their nose up at it. Jews and Muslims acknowledge Mormon doctrine as theologically rooted. But I digress.

 I kind of like the fact that he's aggressive with religious types, because...a lot of what they believe is absurd by any standard of logic; and yet we give them a pass because they attach a name to their flavor of crazy and call it "God". What's vexing is if it were any other brand of stupidity we'd call it what it is: even outmoded religions like Norse or Greek mythology are openly mocked; and yet the other ones, equally as ridiculous, are given room under the tolerance umbrella. It's really just superstitious tradition clinging desperately, and violently, to relevance.

Now while I don't respect the belief in a deity,  I respect the right to have it.

 

Reply
:iconrobbe25:
Robbe25 Featured By Owner Sep 2, 2013
I think being brought up as a catholic, I think of priests being old men in robes :).

I agree that religions are stupid (although the belief in old religions has some fun aspects to them; I mean endless amounts of beer and mead in the afterlife? Sign me up for that :D), but I also agree that people should have the right to believe in whatever they want (as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else).
Reply
:iconcodyrush:
codyrush Featured By Owner Sep 2, 2013  Student Filmographer

Yeah, topless several breasted gods sound awesome.

 Not surprising you would imagine red robes and rosary beads. Those are to designate a specific elite class of believers and teachers in the Catholic faith: Mormonism doesn't operate under the same traditional priest/congregation paradigm. What's taught in one congregation is what's being taught in another on the opposite side of the planet. There's no need for a designated priest to interpret the preverbal latin. Everyone's reading from the same play book, the teaching plan for that week, month and year. However that's in formal classes throughout sunday. There are individual talks but these are based on personal interpretation and that's made adamantly clear.

   Every man in my family's culture is a priest, expected to be a minister, a scholar and a scribe, versed from birth daily in their faith's canon: and that's not an exaggeration. Mormons attend three hours of church weekly, not including daily scripture, family study and prayer and personal prayer; which is recommended at least twice a day: but it's not discouraged to pray as oft as personal preference dictates. Then in high school we take an hour long course in all established Christian canon for four years. You don't get flashy gear when you make up half of your faith's population. Both men and women become scriptorians, but the priesthood is currently masculine. It's one of the reasons I dismissed the faith. That and a sexy little thing called reason.

 I get a lot of respect from my jewish friends for under going this sort of cultural fanaticism. Empathy is probably a better word. 

 Religions are in fact asinine, but...I don't have a problem with the non-literalist practitioners.  They tend to be a little more...sane. Zealots who recognize their religion exists to dictate their behavior, not my own, I don't have any problem with them. Maybe that's why I identify with Christopher Hitchens more than Dawkins: like Hitchens, I spend a good amount of time in civil conversations with religious academics where I politely state it's all bullshit, and they very kindly disagree; and then usually, like Hitchens, the discussion turns to addressing the necessity for zealots to get their bed fellows in line and what is or isn't a fascinating or humanistically functional philosophy. Because religion is a part of spirituality, it's just the psychotic part that tries to attach names and faces to abstracts and ideas to authorize them. It's the part that needs to go.

Reply
(1 Reply)
Add a Comment:
 
×

More from DeviantArt



Details

Submitted on
August 30, 2013
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
89
Favourites
2 (who?)
Comments
33
×