I was just about to post this after I read it on the BBC website. Truly appalling.

Ooops, watch out for potential double-posting - I put this in the Community queue as soon as I saw it. You have my full permission to go delete it!

Oh, and yeah - it's a revolting and outrage-inducing story.

What am I missing? The girl in the photo is a total cutie-pie. But either way it's really sad to see such obsession with "image" hurting even young girls.

This reminds me of the whole C+C Music Factory "Gonna Make You Sweat" and Martha Wash deal.

If you don't recall, C+C M.F. released the song and, depending on who you ask, either outright stated or at the least implied (via the picture on the single, and the video release) that Zelma Davis, a slender "sales friendly" woman, did the vocals on the song when in fact they were performed by Martha Wash, a woman of a physique less salable in the MTV era.

Zelma Davis really got the shaft out of the whole thing because while she was, in fact, a talented vocalist she was made out out be the villain while the actual managers of C+C hid behind the whole thing.

That poor girl. Imagine being told at 7 years old that while you are talented, you're not pretty enough to sing in front of people. As if there's such a thing as an unattractive 7 year old, anyway. People suck.

This is so sad, especially the cold-hearted, machine-like calculation used to appraise the two girls, but, really--I'm not surprised. I could easily see something like this happening in the US as well.

This sucks but it happens to men too - Milli Vanilli comes to mind.

Discrimination based on looks has been around for a very long time and it knows no age or gender. Women and girls do take the brunt of it, but boys and men have to deal with the same shit as well.

But also, having a presence as an entertainer is a talent. You shouldn't dismiss the other little girl because she was chosen for her looks. Some people are charismatic, some are not. Some are meant to be in the public eye, some are meant to be behind the scenes.

i heard about this on the radio this morning and i just wanted to cry. this is so awful, for both girls, to be dragged into something like this and slammed with such shallow, cruel, adult calculations on an international stage.

our local morning show guy was talking about it and made the point that if they had just used the real singer, everyone would have fallen in love with her anyway and i think he's right.

That's so horrible. One was told she couldn't sing. The other was told she couldn't be seen. I'd be fucking traumatized.

I was actually going to do a community post on this. It makes me wonder if it's better to learn at 7 - or maybe wait another 10 years - that no matter how talented you are, no matter how smart you are, no matter how funny you are, the only way a woman is of any value to society is if she's pretty. And to be told by your government, no less...

The olympics is full of shit like this. Has anyone noticed that the female gymnasts' floor routines have to have music and dancing in addition to, um, gymnastics? Or that the men's beach volleyball uniforms are essentially the same as their indoor volleyball uniforms, yet the women compete in swimsuits? I don't understand. Sigh.
This is a heart-breaking story :( That little girl is the cutest thing ever, and I see no reason why anyone who heard her sing wouldn't absolutely agree 100%. The fact that anyone would think she wasn't pretty enough makes me sick. I second Apsalar, what the hell is an unattractive 7 year old supposed to look like???

dominoes: Similiarly, the other "pretty" girl doesn't get out of this injury-free; she's being told that she's not talented enough, and all the praise she's getting is based around her good looks. Certainly that's going to have an effect on the way she sees herself and sees the world.

The sad thing is that both girls are adorable but the one whose face appeared fits more with a Western standard of girlish cuteness. It's not entirely China's fault but the fault of a Western standard of beauty that was spread through globalization. The story is disgusting, both girls are adorable...

"Flawless?" That's fucked. The New York Times article suggests that Peiyi was passed over for her "imperfect teeth." I don't know whether that's official word from the Politburo, but if it's true, well, a reminder to the Politburo: Most seven-year-olds are missing a couple of teeth.

Sorry FeministGal, while I am happy to blame lots of things on globalization and insane Western standards, to try to do so here is a cop out.

It's not like ridiculous beauty standards haven't existed in the East for thousands of years, and the line from Mr. Chen "The reason for this is that we must put our country's interest first. The girl appearing on the picture must be flawless in terms of her facial expression and the great feeling she can give to people." doesn't really sound like the same reasoning a Western official might give for a similar action. Although something like this could easily happen.

Nice to see China has its priorities straight. How horrible for both girls.

The one with the voice looks like a normal girl, and the one with the "image" somehow already looks plastic (and what's with the trendy hairdo?). How not surprising...

Brad, why would you say that doesn't sound like the reasoning a Western official might give? They might sugar-coat it more in the West than in China, but I think the underlying reasoning would be the same.

All i'm saying is that with China being so concerned about their image throughout these Olympics i can see them choosing the more stereotypically Western looking girl over the other girl and chalking it up to being, "flawless in terms of her facial expression and the great feeling she can give to people"... The pig tails, the big toothy smile, the lighter, long hair... that's all Western little girl "cute." IMO, China's attempt to cast the "cuter" girl for the way she looks is intertwined with Western standards of girlishness and cuteness and since all eyes are on China right now, they are trying to fit in as much as possible with these standards. Look at the two pictures in the article, which one looks more American? Like i said, that is just one opinion...

I agree with Brad-the Eastern standards of beauty are just as damaging and have an even longer history of policing women's looks and sexuality. This isn't to say that Western influence isn't ever an issue, but I think if China was all that concerned with what the "west" (and does that include Europe?) really thinks of them, they would stop the forced sterilization of women in Tibet. Cause I'm pretty sure nobody is down with that.

I know it was a show to showcase the beauty and might of China, but singing talent is its own beauty. Even if Yang Peiyi isn't very pretty, she's still a hell of a talented kid. You'd think that with thousands upon thousands of little girls in China they could've found one that had the talent and the appearance without telling one girl that her talent isn't enough, and the other that her beauty is more important than her talent.

When I first read this, I got so angry I started shaking. How can one tell two 7 year olds that one isn't pretty enough and the other isn't talented enough? And as pointed out above, by the government no less. This is a horrible situation & I wish these girls the best of luck later on in life.

The one with the voice looks like a normal girl, and the one with the "image" somehow already looks plastic (and what's with the trendy hairdo?).

What the fuck? Indigirka, how in your mind does outrage at one grammar schooler being passed over as not cute enough justify scrutinizing and criticizing the face of another grammar schooler? Your comment above is so very mean and counterproductive.

On the video of it on youtube, someone actually referred to the 9-year-old girl as "that bitch..." Like it was her fault the adults chose her.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq2SukIN10Q

FeministGal:
I think I slightly misinterpreted your comment initially, sorry, your clarification helped.

I still find your point a bit hard to argue considering the girl they chose has appeared commercials that ran only in China. Although I think there might be some merit to an argument that says China has already been very influenced by the Western standard of beauty and this girl was chosen for that reason.

But, I think it suffices to say, "What the fuck!? They're seven!" Seven year olds (and in my opinion people in general) are cute and beautiful because of what could be perceived as flaws.

As someone else said earlier, the world would have fallen in love with Yang Peiyi. In fact putting a cute as hell but "flawed" 7 year in a prominent place in the opening ceremonies would have shown a more human side to China. I think they didn't choose Yang Peiyi because of their own standards of perfection, and, in the absence of perfection, perceived perfection.

I think Lin Miaoke was chosen for the same reason that they shot anti-smog pellets into the air, and trucked out all the homeless people, and the same reason tibetan freedom content routinely disappears from the internet. Although it is interesting that they didn't try to find a better looking earthquake hero I guess that kid's flaws were ok, interesting that they didn't think it necessary to apply those same standards to him.

"In fact putting a cute as hell but "flawed" 7 year in a prominent place in the opening ceremonies would have shown a more human side to China. I think they didn't choose Yang Peiyi because of their own standards of perfection, and, in the absence of perfection, perceived perfection."

Brad, i agree 100% percent :)

FeministGal, please don't bring who "Western Beauty Standard" into this situation. I know the entire lip-sysching scheme is a very unfair, stupid, damamging deal; but trying to saying that Lin Niaoke is choose solely because she look more "Western" is also pretty mean and rude.
It is not like Miaoke choose to have lighter hair or "Western facial structure" by her very own choice. By saying that she was chosen because she look "Western" is like saying that she don't look "Asian" enough, and to me that is just stereotyping too, isnt it?!
I guess the people could also simply have said "oh this Ughyur/Russian/Hmong girl have angelic voice, but they are not Chinese/Oriental enough, so lets find a 'real' Chinese girl to lip-synch over that voice".
This sounds just as sad as the current situation, right?!

Well, there is a lot of pressure in China for women to look more European--ads for skin whitening creams and eye-enlarging plastic surgery abound, and it's fucking creepy--but I dunno if you can stretch that issue to these 7-year-olds.

Being slightly off topic Naama, I am well aware of that whole skin-lightening and the double eyelid trend, comeing from Hong Kong. While the both has a bit more of a tradition through out the history, the second one is definitely damaging and a more recent trend. To me it is sad to see people, regardless of race, to go throught different procedure to look somthing they are not.

The reason for me to critize the "western beauty standard" is used to apply to Lin Miaoke is because not only because I do look quite "Western" like Miaoke, but also I am very well aware of the diversity in China.
As much as many Han Chinese just hate to admitt that, we are not a very pure group of mixture. Through out the history Chinese had expend in national boundaries and of course, intermarrying with different groups of people, resulting in mixed facial/physical appearence. Even until today, there is still many minorities, who might look completely "Western", live in the border edge of the country; and many people who just happened to look sorta "white" or "middle eastern" like me.
therefore when people keep bringing up the "minorities looking up to 'western beauty standard'", it makes make feel insane because I never choose to have ridiculous light complexion or double lid. it just happen to me.
I don't even know...

I took a class on Korean Pop Culture and we learned that this is actually pretty common in Asia. Many popular artists are actually lip synching. As people have mentioned above, the "artist" is usually chosen as the face of the music because they are deemed more physically attractive (which, unfortunate as it is, often means more Western-looking), whereas the "less attractive" singer is not shown to the public. For some reason this is an accepted practice in Korea and is probably becoming more popular in China. I personally think it's pretty despicable (especially to do to a 7 year old), but I doubt China realized what a big deal this would be to Americans and the western world.

MeowKun, you wrote "but trying to saying that Lin Niaoke is choose solely because she look more 'Western' is also pretty mean and rude.
It is not like Miaoke choose to have lighter hair or 'Western facial structure' by her very own choice."

I don't think it was Lin Niaoke's choice to look the way she does or get chosen for the reasons she did. I think that it works to her disadvantage too that she was chosen solely based on her looks and not her talent. She is not the one to blame, or target. Who IS at fault are the individuals who chose her based solely on the way she looks, there's a big difference. She may have no chosen to have the Western standard of beauty features but all i am saying is i believe a big reason she was chosen was because she DOES have these features. You see what i mean?

[i]All i'm saying is that with China being so concerned about their image throughout these Olympics i can see them choosing the more stereotypically Western looking girl over the other girl and chalking it up to being, "flawless in terms of her facial expression and the great feeling she can give to people"... The pig tails, the big toothy smile, the lighter, long hair... that's all Western little girl "cute." IMO, China's attempt to cast the "cuter" girl for the way she looks is intertwined with Western standards of girlishness and cuteness and since all eyes are on China right now, they are trying to fit in as much as possible with these standards. Look at the two pictures in the article, which one looks more American? Like i said, that is just one opinion... [/i]

Sorry, I may be a little bit sensitive, but I find this offensive.

The notion that “pig tails, the big toothy smile, the lighter, long hair….that’s all Western little girl “cute” ...” is patronising and implies that being “cute” and having all those features mentioned above fits a ‘Western’ standard of beauty. As the poster brad has mentioned, China has had its own standards of beauty since time immemorial. What….do you think that before the Chinese opened their borders to the Western world or even knew about the Western world that they had no standards of beauty (ie. “Chinese” beauty) ? What specifically makes pig tales, a big smile, light/long hair a “Western” standard of beauty? And “Western standards of girlishness and cuteness”? Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeaseeeeeeee…..the Chinese, and other Asians have been wayyyyyyyyyy more into the “Cute” standard of beauty compared to the Western world (or Americans in specific) , whose standard beauty for women are more “Sexy” than “Cute”. Who invented Hello Kitty? That, coupled with the widely-accepted belief/fact that Asian’s facial features are more infantilized than their Occidental counterparts (rounder, less angular.)

The fact of the matter is, faces with more infantilized features are often seen as desirable in women everywhere, and is not just a “Western” standard of beauty. Also, while I am very aware that the “Western” features are often desirable in Asians (as well as other Non-“white” race) and some Asians even undergo surgery to look more “white”, going so far as to say the reason why an Asian would be attractive is because he/she has “White” features is just plain insulting, no matter who says it. It implies that there is only one standard of beauty that matters ….”White”, and that “Asian” features, are inherently ugly. Sorry, but that is really offensive.

In my opinion, the little girl who was chosen to publicly sing has normal Chinese features. Speaking as someone who is ¾ Chinese, there is nothing about her that resembles “White features”. Is she, in the two pictures, prettier compared to the other girl (based on the pictures)? Yes, but then, some humans have better facial features than others….that doesn’t naturally make those facial features “White”….just more “beautiful” as we humans know it. Beautiful is not always synonymous with White. If it was…then the average White Joe/Jane on the streets of New York would be more beautiful than the average Wong/Chin in the streets of Beijing.

Also, to repeat what Brad says…what the Chinese official said…it is a very Chinese/Asian way of thinking and I agree with him it is not what you would normally hear a Western offiicial say.

Think about it….all eyes are on China now, and there are many, many people out there, who, unable to understand the Chinese way of thinking or the Chinese culture immediately criticize what they see (through their Western eyes) as a authoritarian, totalitarian government. When the Chinese go overseas or interact with other people, they rationalize that their actions will reflect upon all other Chinese. I am sure women know this VERY WELL, as how many times has a poster on this forum said that when one woman makes a silly mistake, it makes men see ALL women as silly. Same thing with the Chinese (or any other racial minority ).

Just an example: Being mostly Chinese, I have had many Chinese girls tell me that one of the reasons why they don’t overly-date when in University (overseas) or be overly “seductive”/”scantily-claid”/etc is because they don’t want others to think that Chinese girls are “easy”. This is putting the importance of the collective (Chinese people) before the importance of the individual. To me, this can be seen as a Chinese way of thinking….how often would Carrie and Co. worry about “Americans girls” being seen as easy …?

Same thing applies here. Why would the Chinese government decide to choose a prettier girl to sing in front of everyone? For the sake of appearance. Chinese, and other Asians, already have a very skewed image in the Western world in terms of attractiveness. Asian women are considered “Exotic”, a “fetish”, and adorn porn images more than magazine covers….and Asian men……forget it. Even if the Asian man is a the star of his own movie (Jet Li ), he doesn’t even get to kiss the girl…Asian men are asexual. Asian features are often thought of as flat and round. I can understand (though I don’t necessarily agree that it is a GOOD thing) why the Chinese Government would choose a more attractive person to represent the Chinese people. It is the same reason why they want to excel at the Olympics and sports in general and track events in particular. Long called “the Sick Man of Asia”, it was a phenomenon when Liu Xiang won gold in the 110m...just to show that Asian bodies can be as good as White or Black bodies. And that could carry across here, as in hey, Chinese people can be attractive as well.

In my post above, the first portion is actually a quote. Apologies for the mistake.

Also, many Asian cultures have traditionally given high beauty ratings to paler skin, throughout history, as a matter of class privilege. This is not indicative of universal idealization of Caucasian women, per se.

Since lip synching where a "more attractive" person is chosen to be the face and the "less attractive" person the voice was brought up it makes me wonder how much worse it is than in many cases in the U.S. where an "attractive" singer (especially if female) is given advantage and opportunity over an "unattractive" singer. For instance, perhaps there are two singers of equal talent (or perhaps the "unattractive" singer is more talented) yet the recording industry decides to sign the singer they think will be most visually attractive and marketable to the public. Yes, I know there are successful female singers that people don't consider attractive, but there are a disproportionate amount of traditionally attractive female singers for talent alone to have been the only signing consideration. Now that actresses and singers are replacing models for beauty and fashion ads (as well as various other products) beauty seems to be a "bonus to help get them signed" if not a requirement. The lip synching situation (in adults) seems to me to be slightly worse because there is deceit involved, but both situations are discriminatory. In this particular case of course it is made much more disgusting because it involved children.

Re: "Just an example: Being mostly Chinese, I have had many Chinese girls tell me that one of the reasons why they don’t overly-date when in University (overseas) or be overly “seductive”/”scantily-claid”/etc is because they don’t want others to think that Chinese girls are “easy”. This is putting the importance of the collective (Chinese people) before the importance of the individual. To me, this can be seen as a Chinese way of thinking….how often would Carrie and Co. worry about “Americans girls” being seen as easy …? "

Hate to be the one to inform you of this, but in fact, we *all* want to avoid the *easy* label, which in fact, foreign women *wherever they go* have to contend with.

The problem is not with the women: it's the culture.... duh!!!!!!!!! Or so one would think... What you are fighting is *racism* pure and simple (exotica by any other name???) and btw you are justified - all of you!!!! - in using any and all means necessary in your defence, as the late lamented Malcolm X once observed. (I am *waiting* for a female Malcolm X... please let me know!!!)

Re: "Just an example: Being mostly Chinese, I have had many Chinese girls tell me that one of the reasons why they don’t overly-date when in University (overseas) or be overly “seductive”/”scantily-claid”/etc is because they don’t want others to think that Chinese girls are “easy”. This is putting the importance of the collective (Chinese people) before the importance of the individual. To me, this can be seen as a Chinese way of thinking….how often would Carrie and Co. worry about “Americans girls” being seen as easy …? "

Hate to be the one to inform you of this, but in fact, we *all* want to avoid the *easy* label, which in fact, foreign women *wherever they go* have to contend with.

The problem is not with the women: it's the culture.... duh!!!!!!!!! Or so one would think... What you are fighting is *racism* pure and simple (exotica by any other name???) and btw you are justified - all of you!!!! - in using any and all means necessary in your defence, as the late lamented Malcolm X once observed. (I am *waiting* for a female Malcolm X... please let me know!!!)

Samantha: I took a class on Korean Pop Culture and we learned that this is actually pretty common in Asia. Many popular artists are actually lip synching. As people have mentioned above, the "artist" is usually chosen as the face of the music because they are deemed more physically attractive (which, unfortunate as it is, often means more Western-looking), whereas the "less attractive" singer is not shown to the public. For some reason this is an accepted practice in Korea and is probably becoming more popular in China.

Considering such effects as food tasting better when it's better presented, jokes being funnier when other people laugh, and, hell, drugs being more effective when sold at a higher price, is it not possible that vocal performances genuinely sound better when sung by, or perceived to be sung by, more attractive performers?

How sad!! I wonder how they explained to that girl that she wasn't cute enough to represent her country. Would they have done the same with a little boy in the same position? It's tough to think that when I have daughters, I'll have to explain society's importance on beauty and hope that they can have some semblance of self esteem despite it.

Is anybody else having issues viewing page 8 and on back too?

I find that strange considering that page has the "Fair Pay Act passes house" article and comments in which I laid waste the feminist concept of the "wage gap" and also showed succinctly why feminists fighting for expanded gender roles for **only women** does not also "free men" but chains them more strongly to the male gender roles.

The page with the "Fair Pay Act passes house" (and others behind it) are blank, and this blankness moves with that article.

Was my argument "too good?"

Jabes1966,

Seriously? You had to post a comment in a completely unrelated thread to ask if "your argument was 'too good?'" Incredible.

I too am having trouble viewing page 8 and beyond, but instead of posting in some random thread, I'm going to use the "contact us" button at the top of the feministing website.

(Also, if jabes comment gets delted later, please delete mine as well.)

:D

Seriously, I posted in a different thread.
Now I can't log in through typekey. Things are either getting suspicious, or this websight is plaqued with problems.

Either way, I will post the comment again and let readers see if the comment was "threatening" enough to merit erasure. (Sometimes it's not whether or not you're paranoid, but are you paranoid enough)

Here is the below comment from the "Fair Pay Act approved by House" (I pasted it into wordpad based on the bugginess I've experienced here before):

If you can read through this and refuse to understand why the cold logic and destruction of valued feminist myths might not merit censorship -- well you're beyond my help.

------------------------------------------------
I just wanted to state my opinion and give a response primarily to A) Puckalish’s earlier comment: ”this guy won’t accept any reports no matter how refined or how raw.”

I also wanted to state why B) I think “comparable worth” or some kind of equity balancing law to “equal things out” for women through government intervention (guidelines only or laws) is HUGELY misguided.

The other thing I wanted to refute is C) Petpluto’s comment that women are fighting against male oppression. She didn’t say how, but the meaning I drew is that by fighting the narrowly accepted roles of women, this helped men indirectly. Using common sense and logic I will put forward the supposition that (should be) easy to see why this is a totally false concept.

Lastly, I wanted to state D) why I think “female outreach” programs by companies are doomed to failure and ultimately harm men, women, and the companies themselves.

I will do this through common sense suppositions without any personal attacks. If you guys can do the same (Puckalish) then great. If not, well that behavior really says more about YOU than ME doesn’t it?

A) Puckalish, I will accept that there is work-place discrimination against women. You had a possible(?) move to shift and meet somewhere in the middle, retreating from the 26% figure (albeit with outright attacks upon me for having the nerve to disagree and being able to articulately state my opinion). Is it wide-spread, systematic, and around 26%?
I highly doubt it. And I will tell you why. The business mantra is: money. Morality and ethics go out the window as we saw in the 70’s when Lee Iaccoca (then in ford top brass) along with others decided to NOT recall the pinto (prone to exploding when struck in the rear even at low speeds) because some pencil pushers figured out that the lawsuits from the dead and injured would cost less than a recall.

How does this apply to women’s pay discrimination? Well, didn’t Merril Lynch just pay $2million dollars for a discrimination lawsuit? Going by the business mantra (money) it’s plain lunacy to presume that all companies everywhere are discriminating against women.

This would open these companies up to such a huge liability that businesses would be going under left and right. Now are there some industries companies that are still discriminating? I would presume so, but these industries would have to be A) dominated by jackasses, and B) have enough clout/money to figure they can do this and get away with it, or don’t care about a (potential) out-of-court settlement of thousands. There aren’t many companies with both of these things. Grocers are out (they make pennies on the dollar in profit), as are department stores, and a lot of other companies except maybe things like IT, Pharmacueticals, stock brokerage houses MAY have a culture conducive to discrimination and the means to pay lawsuits without blinking.

While some women may have pay disparity (even after variables) of 20% or 30% I would be surprised if even companies in this group with possible discrimination cultures routinely discriminate (as an aggregate total to all female employees) more than 8%. Why? The business mantra: money. The liability is just too great. Each discriminated-against woman may be saving the company $800 per year. That’s worth a potential liability of hundreds of thousands? No. Businesses may be unethical and cruel, but they love money.

So that’s my attempt to meet in the middle. If a few companies are discriminating here and there to the tune of 2% - 8% that’s a far cry from the battle cry of “Universal, systematic 26%” figure bandied about by politicians and feminists. And a far cry from an epidemic problem that needs “fixing” through government intervention like “comparable worth” laws. That brings me to:

B) Why comparable worth laws are a sham. #1 many people much smarter than me are in the political sphere. They have lots of letters after their name (degrees). I have (pretty much) argued most of you to a stand still and gotten the most vocal person to back off the “26%” figure. And these politicians are a lot SMARTER than me. IF the figure is bogus why do politicians support it?

First, let’s look at the 100’s of millions of dollars companies give in campaign finance to members of both parties. If congress passes a law stating what salaries will be is anybody on this board naïve enough to assume CORPORATIONS won’t have a BIG hand in drafting this bill? With the business mantra in mind (Money) when this un-named (but inevitable) law comes to pass do you think the law will raise wages for women, or lower them for men to come to “parity”?

Of course, men’s will be lowered. Incrementally a couple % points a year, but they will come down. So……Men will STILL do the dying, but now they won’t even have the high salaries to bring home to their families. Lacking that extra cash what will happen?
Well, the wives will have to go to work of course.
This (upcoming and un-named “comparable worth” and inevitable) law will #1 reduce wages for men in the death profession(i.e. ALSO take money from wives and children) and in addition FLOOD the market with more labor (reducing wages for all) as the wives are forced into work.

This won’t be a “comparable worth” law, it’s the “great wage reduction act” swindle. Feminists are being used as a bunch of tools, and I can’t believe you people are stupid enough to fall for it!

Knowing human nature, and knowing corporate nature, and knowing that corporations have a strangle-hold on government any rationale person should see that I am right!

C) Petpluto (I believe) mentioned that feminists are fighting against the types of oppression that men face in the “provider” role model. I will give a couple of examples of why I (anyway) don’t believe this to be true.

Let’s look at divorce.

In the late 1800’s and early 1900’s divorce was unheard of. I think this is because marriage was more an act for survival instead of fulfillment.
By the 1960’s technology in leisure devices and increased standard of living (thanks in large part to Unions—I believe) meant men and women sought fulfillment instead of survival. During the 70’s no-fault divorce swept the land and was passed as law in 49 states. The leading argument was that women shouldn’t have to be in stagnant unfulfilling marriages, or violent ones either.

The argument also was that this enabled women to break from the accepted and safe “housewife” role.
Now, here is my point. A huge tsunami of divorce enabled women to “shatter” their gender roles. But what did divorce do to men? Why were so many women unfulfilled with their husbands in the first place?

I put forward this supposition (and try not to think about men, but how YOU WOULD FEEL working 8-10hrs a day with a newborn or toddler at home). When a man (or anybody) has to work long hours and miss his/her baby’s first crawl, first words, first steps, first day at school that person has to accept that he/she is doing something necessary for the family (providing an income) but must disconnect himself/herself from their emotions or be swept up in sadness.

So what happened to MEN as divorce enabled women to “shatter” preconceived gender roles for women? Well, post-divorce a man now had to pay for a mortgage for a house he no longer resided in, child support, alimony. And now he was thrust back into the courtship ritual (which meant he needed even more money).

If the man is lucky enough to find another wife he now has to pay for TWO mortgages, child support, alimony, and the second family. This would mean that the man would have to work harder, longer hours, toady up for promotions more—which means he would have to have an even greater disconnection with his feelings.

So greater freedom in roles for women meant an INTENSIFYING and STRICTER gender roles for men! So, freeing gender roles for women is NOT “fighting for men too.” In most cases it makes things worse for men. Women are NOT fighting to enter into:
Logging, mining, commercial fishing, roofing, sewage, or construction. How do I know? Because I haven’t heard about one single sex discrimination lawsuit in those fields (and I read the paper & internet news all the time).

So women are using their greater gender role freedom to fight to become: doctors, lawyers, pilots, IT professionals, CEO’s, judges, etc… NOT the death professions.

With more men unable to acquire these white collar jobs, and fewer men attaining an education that means more men will turn to the death professions for employment. This means more workers chasing fewer jobs = wage reduction.

So you see when feminists “fight” for ONLY **FEMALE** role expansion it doesn’t help men at all, in fact it puts men from the frying pan into the burner!

When is the last time you have seen a feminist leader or webpage moderator talk about the most unconstitutional anti-male law ever made: selective service.

If an 18y/o man doesn’t sign up for selective service he can be imprisoned for up to 7 years.

Why? Because he was too sensitive to kill. This forced (upon pain of prison) societal coercion of men into the male role of killer IS NOT AND NEVER WILL be addressed by feminists.

Why? Because if you’re going to make the argument that men are your class enemy (and oppressor), you can’t admit that women are also oppressing men.

D) Why I think female outreach programs are a waste of time and actually hurts women, men, and the companies that practice them.

Let’s say that Cisco, or IBM start an outreach program that says ½ of their IT professionals must be female for the sake of good PR. Now let’s say that IT grads are about 10% female.

So IBM human resources is filling 200 new IT jobs. Let’s say they have 2000 applicants. If 10% of IT grads are women, then you will have 1800 men applying and 200 women.
1800 men for 100 jobs means you’re getting the top 6% of qualified applicants. 200 women for 100 jobs means you’re getting the top 50% of qualified applicants. Additionally, the company may have to pay more to fill these female slots.

This is a HUGE expertise gap. What’s interesting is when companies do this women will get a BAD REP for not knowing what they’re doing (due to the expertise gap).

A great deal of the women will be lesser qualified or under-qualified (and paid MORE!) than their male counterparts.

This will breed resentment and sarcastic remarks from their male counterparts. And when a boss (treating the women the SAME as a man) reacts with scorn at a bungled project(costing time and money), the women will feel discriminated against.

Why? Because the boss isn’t yelling at the males (the fact that they’re not bungling projects is not noticed in her eyes). This LOOKS the same as sexual harassment. So, the women feel shitty, the men feel shitty, and the company opens themselves up to huge liabilities in lawsuits. ADDITIONALLY these women will spread their stores as "PROOF" of sexual harassment! LOL!

These outreach programs are a joke. Companies are best off to hire “the most qualified candidate” regardless of height, weight, color or gender. If your work force is 5% female or 95% female having the cream of the crop will never steer you wrong.

Well that’s my rant. I doubt if anybody will willingly acknowledge the logic in it. Probably I’ll get more personal attacks. You guys are SO TOLERANT!

Okay, maybe I was wrong. I just clicked on another topic and got like 12 web pages stacked on top of each other.

Maybe I was seeing sinister intent where none existed.

In that case I apologize.

sticking to the topic i also think that it was really sad that there are still people who puts talent in the back side,people like these should be ashamed of themselves and work at home
if they are so much beauty conscious, i mean come on for God's sake, i didn't know it until i read this and this really made me feel sad
David