Category: Uncategorized

A 30-something female lawyer writes in:

I just had to write you tonight because of your recent posts about 30 something women having trouble finding husbands. I happened to watch The Bachelor Paris tonight. It was the first show where the Batchelor sends home 13 women. What happened in this show was a very illuminating example of what you have written.

One of the women was Allie G., a 33 year old Oncologist. The Bachelor is a Doctor and it was obvious that Allie thought that she was a shoo-in, because what male doctor wouldn’t appreciate a female doctor? During the show, when the Bachelor meets and talks with the women, Allie told him that she was ready to reproduce because her eggs were getting old.

Needless to say, Allie didn’t get a rose. I knew she wasn’t going to take that lying down when I saw the look on her face. It was apparent that she was disgusted with the Bachelor’s choices (most of whom appear to be in their twenties). How dare he turn down a DOCTOR.

Sure enough, the next scenes show Allie out cussing and griping to the other women about how she’s tried internet dating, matchmaking services and everything else to try to find a husband. She bemoaned the fact that men didn’t want her. She expressed that she worked hard and focused on her career and that men should want her for that and that the Bachelor was like every other f*@#&ing male doctor she’s ever known. (In fact, every other word was bleeped at that point) It wasn’t FAIR that she couldn’t get a husband. Look at her credentials!

Then, she’s interviewed alone and she says basically the same kinds of things, including that she couldn’t believe that he picked the other women when he should have picked her, a doctor.

She then goes and confronts the Bachelor and demands that he tell her why he didn’t pick her. He explains that her comment about being ready to reproduce was the reason. She goes into attack mode telling him that he should be ready to reproduce and why wasn’t he ready. Of course, she doesn’t listen to his comment that he doesn’t put the cart before the horse.

She storms off and gripes to the other women about how he should be ready to reproduce because he is in his thirties.

The show ends with her going on and on in the same vein with a show staff member (male )who is trying to escape her onslaught.

This was truly pitiful and I felt really sorry for her in her desperation. She bought into the garbage that men should want women who put career first.

I bought into that too, so I understand her confusion and disbelief when men didn’t flock around her because she was the pretty, smart, successful doctor. That only happens in movies and on television. She, like many professional women, forgot to develop those attributes men are really looking for. I’m not sure what those are, but I know they aren’t the ones upon which doctors and lawyers focus.

I just had to write you about this, it was so in line with what you have been saying. I can’t write about it at my blog because I’m afraid my parents will see it and think that I am talking about myself. Maybe you could write about it.

(And yes, I realize that The Bachelor is a very silly show)

And I now know far more about The Bachelor than I’d ever dreamed… I had no idea it was still being televised. I do find her description of the oncologist’s reaction to be more than a little amusing, though. “I’ve done everything I’m supposed to, now I’m entitled to True Love and on my schedule, $*(%%&!”

It’s never pretty when reality intrudes upon fantasy.

And this is the sort of thing that happens when they have enough power:

The 500 companies listed on Norway’s stock exchange face being shut down unless they install women on their boards over the next two years in a radical initiative imposed by a government determined to help women break through the “glass ceiling”.

After a week in which the Equal Opportunities Commission in Britain has warned that it would take 40 years for women to break into the ranks of the FTSE 100 in the same way as men, Norwegian companies face a two-year deadline to ensure that women hold 40% of the seats of each company listed on the Oslo bourse. New companies have to comply now with the rules and the government is considering extending the law to family-owned companies as well.

The requirement came into effect at the start of this year after companies were given two years to embrace the demands voluntarily following the passing of the law in 2003. State-owned companies are already obliged to comply and now have 45% female representation on their boards.

The failure of companies to act – about half of the companies on the stock market are estimated to have no women on their boards – has prompted the Norwegian equality minister, Karita Bekkemellem, to take the draconian step of threatening firms with closure.

“From January 1 2006, I want to put in place a system of sanctions that will allow the closure of firms,” she said. “I do not want to wait another 20 or 30 years for men with enough intelligence to finally appoint women.

That’s just what every company needs, more useless directors who have no idea what’s going on but the ability to interfere with operations. At least when the old boys are sitting on the board, they are happy to kick back, have a drink or three and let the CEO go about his business. One shudders to think at what sort of brilliant innovations these government-installed female directors are going to impose on their unfortunate companies.

I’d say it’s a sign to have a look at shorting the kroner.

Based on the natural sex ratio from other countries, the researchers estimated that 13.6 to 13.8 million girls should have been born in India in 1997 but the actual number was 13.1 million. The [annual] deficit amounts to between 590,000 and 740,000 female births.

Prabhat Jha and colleagues say: “We conservatively estimate that prenatal sex determination and selective abortion accounts for 500,000 missing girls yearly. If this practice has been common for most of the past two decades since access to ultrasound became widespread, then a figure of 10 million missing female births would not be unreasonable. Women who have already had one or two female children are clearly at highest risk.”

“Female infanticide of the past is refined and honed to a fine skill in this modern guise. It is ushered in earlier, more in urban areas and by the more educated … A careful demographic analysis of actual and expected sex ratios shows that about 100 million girls are missing from the world – they are dead.”

What was that about how abortion is a fundamental women’s right and necessary for their “reproductive freedom”? It seems a very peculiar sort of right that guarantees the mass murder of the very class to whom it is supposed to belong. I’m glad that Jha and company are drawing attention to this abomination, but that last sentence in the second paragraph is a bizarre way to put it… it’s not the woman that is at risk, it’s her daughter.

There is nothing – nothing – more delightful than little girls. It is testimony to the manifold evil of feminism that it murders millions of them and then goes on to corrupt the survivors.

It is telling to note that even in an overtly patriarchal society practicing infanticide, a little girl has a better chance of survival than in one where women are given the “right” to commit abortion.

But Wendy McElroy fails to grasp the gander-goose principle:

An ideological conflict underlies the attempt by either sex to force open the doors of ‘exclusive’ businesses: individual rights versus egalitarianism. Under individual rights, every human being has control over the peaceful use of his or her own body and property. Under egalitarianism, access to and use of property is equally distributed across society, with or without the consent of owners.

I come down on the side of individual rights.

In terms of Body Central, I don’t believe any man or woman has a legal ‘right’ to exercise on someone else’s private property. I do not believe anyone has a moral obligation to provide another person with exercise. Freedom of association means that individuals, including property owners, have a right to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ at their own front door.

Unfortunately, an emotional element also underlies the conflict.

Some men applaud the turn-around as an opportunity to give feminists a taste of their own medicine. In doing so, they adopt the very principles they allegedly decry: egalitarianism, the legal imposition of gender policy, the use of collective ‘gender-think.’ In short, they become feminists.

Body Central may become not only a test case but also a trial of conscience.

Women who believe in egalitarianism will either apply that principle to men or be confronted by their own hypocrisy. Men who believe feminism’s door-busting has been wrong will have to decide whether they value revenge more highly than justice.

While I c0mpletely agree with McElroy on the larger point – private enterprise should be free to discriminate against anyone for any reason – the idea that men who use the law to give women a taste of their own feminist medicine are doing so for merely emotional reasons and have “become feminists” is deeply stupid.

Since women were the only ones pushing for these anti-freedom of association laws, it is only through eliminating their ability to have their cake and eat it too that the right of freedom of association will be restored. I suspect McElroy is being mildly disingenuous here, as there’s no reason to believe that allowing women’s businesses to violate the freedom of association will restore it for men.

Mr. Bruce doesn’t see what is flying over his head:

So, VP–we have here a staunch feminist, a rude, thoughtless, ill-bred young woman, who demands that she not be treated any different than a man, who may be facing a real threat of physical harm. Does she deserve to be hoist on her own petard? And will you snicker behind your hand if she is harmed?

I doubt that you will, but you do seem to rejoice in her present discomfort, as do some of your posters in their comments.

That is a partially inaccurate summary. It is obvious that Jill of Feministe wishes to be treated very differently than a man, as she is playing host to numerous threats of violence against me. Since I regularly face threats of physical harm far more explicit than those which so intimidate Jill – even from her readers – I’m nothing but amused by her typically strong, independent female response.

Does she deserve to be hoist on her own petard? Absolutely she does. Will I snicker behind my hand if she is harmed? No, because I don’t care what happens to her. She’s a self-proclaimed big girl eschewing the oppressive protection of men, she can fend for herself. In any event, she’s facing no more genuine threat of harm than any other woman in New York. There have been millions, if not billions of Internet-based threats made over the last five years and I’ve yet to hear of one of them being followed through.

Jill is a lovely demonstration of the timorous nature of women. Yet again, we see the Strong Independent Woman is all bark with no bite to back it up, and prone to scurrying away like a panicked lapdog whenever anyone barks back. I don’t rejoice in her discomfort, but neither does the humor in the hypocrisy escape me.

UPDATE: Bonehead appreciates the irony.

Early this morning I went to see the thread at Feministe, and saw a post by Mr. Bruce saying

“Hey Jill– I’m a new reader over at Vox Popoli and I followed a link from there to here. Although I left a lengthy comment there, all I want to say here is that I hope you notify the appropriate authorities, if you have not done so already.
Good luck!”

I submitted a post saying that Vox had published a list of threats published by Jill from time to time. My post appeared for a couple of hours with “pending moderation” beside it. The last time I checked, it had been “moderated” out of existence.

Welcome to the marketplace of ideas…

Yes, they do love debate, don’t they. I wonder why Mr. Bruce doesn’t seem to think that I should similarly notify the authorities about the violent threats from Jill’s readers?

Eagles assistant Brad Childress was hired as coach of the Minnesota Vikings on Friday…. “Coach Childress was the elite NFL head coaching candidate,” owner Zygi Wilf said at a news conference. “He embodies class, character and discipline and is a great family man. Bottom line, Brad Childress is a winner.”

I don’t know much about Childress, and given the performance of the Eagles’ offense – for which he didn’t call the plays as OC – over the last few years, there’s nothing that makes me want to sing and dance about this hire. Not that I have anything against it either; I certainly prefer him to Cottrell or Williams, the other two names that surfaced. And not being Mike Tice should be good for at least two additional wins a year.

But he has been with two winning programs, Reid in Philly and Alvarez at Wisconsin, so that’s theoretically a good sign. And the Vikes have done rather well with a low-key coach before. Think he’ll mind if we call him Bud instead of Brad?

Digital needs to brush up on his Italian history:

Get your facts straight. Fascists opposed women and forced feminist organizations to disband and put a stop to feminist publications.

Believe what you want however, I just wanted to offer some truth.

I find that it is typically those who are fear filled and emotionally unbalanced that have the greatest difficulty with truth.

Which, no doubt, is why Digital will have trouble absorbing the verifiable historical facts. From The Manifesto of the Fascist Struggle, written by Benito Mussolini and published in The People of Italy on June 6, 1919:

Italians! Here is the program of a genuinely Italian movement. It is revolutionary because it is anti-dogmatic, strongly innovative and against prejudice.

For the political problem: We demand:

a) Universal suffrage polled on a regional basis, with proportional representation and voting and electoral office eligibility for women.

As I stated, it’s the very first plank in the Fascist platform. This really shouldn’t be that hard to grasp. Totalitarians always turn on those who bring them to power, just ask Ernst Röhm and the Sturmabteilung or Georgi Plekhanov and the Mensheviks. In a democratic system, statist totalitarians will always favor the women’s vote, because women reliably vote for them. This is even true in Islamic democracies such as Turkey: “Both female and male MPs admitted that male leaders easily coopted women through women branches to extend their control over women at the same time as providing them access to politics.” (Yesim Arat, “Patriarchal Paradox: Women in Politics in Turkey,” Associated University Press, 1984. p. 103) Once safely in power, statists then favor using women as brood mares in service to the state; from each according to her abilities, and all that.

Today, the female prediliction for “diversity” and multiculturalism is being used in precisely this manner by the Wahhabbists.

When mere mockery can’t keep pace with reality. From the Rabbi’s column on WND today:

The image of American women in the popular media has taken yet another blow with the announcement and launch of the massive promotional campaign by the Oxygen network to promote its new show, “Campus Ladies.” The show revolves around middle-aged women who return to college and decide to indulge in “age-inappropriate” behavior with young, male college students….

I find it astonishing that in my lifetime I have seen the feminist dream become a nightmare, where not a single feminist leader will speak against the tsunami of misogyny that has opened up against American women. Feminism’s highest objective was once the emphasis on female higher education. But this has now devolved into a cultural portrayal of women going to college not because they want to discover Aristotle and Shakespeare, but because they want to have orgies with men.

She laughed, she cried. Much better than cats. What the Rabbi fails to understand that this sort of thing was inevitable from the start, and desperation is never pretty. Feminism is the only ideology that makes both Communism and National Socialism look practical, sensible and humane by comparison.

I’d been having some problems with my hands while lifting; I’d have minor palm pain in my right hand for a day or two after doing anything reasonably heavy. But Spacebunny bought me a pair of these for Christmas and I can testify that they make a big difference. The neoprene is twice as thick as a regular neoprene lifting glove, and about four times thicker than leather gloves.

When benching yesterday, the NewGrips made it possible to hit two more reps on my last set repping out at 225; normally, my leather gloves tend to slip just a little, sliding my grip out just enough to make the last reps too risky past a certain point. They’re also quite comfortable, the neoprene keeps your hands from getting calluses and they provide both an excellent grip as well as some support for your wrists from the straps to which the pad is attached with velcro.

Best of all, no pain whatsoever. The thickness of the neoprene absorbs enough of the weight that it doesn’t strain whatever tendon or ligament wasn’t liking things. They may look a little odd and take a few minutes to get used to, but if you’re at all serious about lifting, they’re worth checking out.