music for the week
music for the week
The “one country, two systems” principle should not be used by “opposition forces” to attempt to snatch governance over the SAR, a Beijing official said.
Zhang Rongshun, vice chairman of the legislative affairs commission of the National People’s Congress Standing Committee, was speaking at a forum in Beijing to mark the 25th anniversary of the promulgation of the Basic Law.
Zhang said “one country, two systems” is aimed at preserving the SAR’s status and that Beijing has sovereignty over Hong Kong.
Zhang told the forum, organized by the semi- official think-tank the Chinese Association of Hong Kong and Macau Studies, that the special constitutional institution as stipulated in the Basic Law is to acknowledge the country’s sovereignty on Hong Kong.
“It is not providing a stage for some forces and letting them snatch governance of Hong Kong and attempt to turn Hong Kong into an independent political entity or change the fundamental institution in the country,” he said.
Zhang said he is still optimistic the political reform for the 2017 chief executive election could be passed in the Legislative Council.
The association’s head, Chen Zuoer, said since Hong Kong is at a critical stage in the pursuit of political reform, politicians should have the courage to consider the matter from a macro perspective and not to neglect the SAR’s actual democratic development.
Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office deputy director Zhou Bo referred to late Singaporean prime minister Lee Kuan Yew, who predicted the friction between the SAR and central governments about political reform, unless it adhered to the Basic Law and national constitution.
Central government liason office deputy director Huang Lanfa criticized Occupy Central, which challenged the central government.
City University political scientist James Sung Lap-kung said Zhang referred to activists who launched Occupy Central as the “opposition forces.”
Civic Party lawmaker Alan Leong Kah-kit said Zhang’s remarks further worsened the ties between Hong Kong and the mainland and it is much better for Beijing officials not to make intimidating remarks.
Federation of Students secretary general-elect Nathan Law Kwun-chung said the Basic Law has clearly guaranteed Hong Kong people’s political rights.
“Feminism is organized insanity. Why be merely crazy, when you can turn your mental illness into a political movement?”
— Robert Stacy McCain, Jan. 29
If there is anything feminists hate more than Christianity, heterosexuality, America and capitalism, it’s a “male feminist.”
The quotation marks are required because “male feminist” is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. Feminism is a women’s movement, organized for women and led by women, and there is nothing any man can do that will qualify him for membership in the movement.
However, this self-evident truth does not prevent “progressive” males from trying to leverage feminism to their own advantage. The “male feminist” denounces his fellow men — you know, those hateful misogynists over there in the patriarchy — in an effort to persuade feminists that he is an exception to the rule. He is not a sexist oppressor.He does not view women as sex objects. He just wants equality (and a “liberated” girlfriend who doesn’t demand monogamy or a long-term commitment or any of that other bourgeois “responsibility” stuff).
The prototypical “male feminist” was Hugo Schwyzer, a deranged professor who routinely slept with his community college students, nearly killed a woman and had a psychotic meltdown after he was called out for his gross misconduct.
Feminism is based on the belief that all men (collectively) oppress allwomen (collectively), so that humanity is divided into two groups, male oppressors and female victims. As members of the oppressor group, males are by definition part of the problem (variously termed “patriarchy,” “male supremacy” or “misogyny”) and only women, as members of the victim group, can be permitted to have any voice or influence in defining the solution to this problem. Karen Ingala Smith has explained that anything a man says about feminism contributes to the “silencing of women in the public sphere,” which means that “women’s subordination is reinforced.” Men only seek to be recognized as “feminists” so they can play a role of “leadership and power”:
Those who have power and benefit from it in varying degrees generally do not cede it and share it — they protect and reinforce it. . . .
[Women] are entitled to demand our rights without apology, without reference to how this affects men, without sorting out all the men’s problems too. . . .
That is not to say there is no role for men, just not the role they are used to of leadership and power. Men are very welcome to say that they support us and to consult with us to see in what way they can be most useful to the cause and we will tell them.
In other words, guys: “The First Rule of Feminism Is Shut Up.”
Nevertheless, “progressive” males continue begging for scraps from the feminist table and feminists sometimes give them answers:
Question: Do you believe that there is anything men can do to aid feminism despite not being able to be feminists themselves?
Answer: Oh, there’s plenty men can do! Unfortunately (for men), none of that gets you the hero status and women fawning over you that most men seem to be after when they decide to engage in feminist causes. Some things that men can do to help are:
– Confront other men in male-dominated spaces when they display sexist behavior (even if there’s no woman looking).
– Do not watch porn or participate in the sex industry in any way. Tell your male friends to do the same.
– Donate money to institutions dedicated to helping women.
– Listen to women and believe them without questioning or playing devil’s advocate when they talk about their experiences.
– Use your privileged voice to create opportunities for women. For example, you can recommend a female coworker for a promotion to your boss, or make sure he pays attention to her work. Women are often invisible or ignored.
– Understand the importance of female-only spaces and protect those spaces. Do not try to invade them and do not let other men do the same.
– Do not let the women in your life do more than their share of housework. Clean your stuff, wash your dishes, change your kid’s diapers, cook your food, and do all of that without being asked to or expecting special praise.
– Respect women’s boundaries and spaces. Do not take more than your share of a seat on a bus or a train, for example, and do not push women around verbally. Women are socialized to be accomodating and will often not enforce their own boundaries for fear of male violence, even if they’re terribly uncomfortable, so you have to recognize this discomfort and back off.
– Do not judge a woman for her appearance. Avoid commenting on it, and never compare her to another woman. If you want to praise a woman, prefer to focus on her intelligence or skills.
– Work to dismantle male supremacy from the inside. Combat your own male socialization, your own entitlement and your own tendency to violence and aggression. Question everything that’s gendered. And do not become defensive or try to justify yourself when a woman calls you out on your male-dominant behavior. Do not use tired cliches like “not all men are like that!” or “but I’m a nice guy!”. Instead, examine your behavior and try to understand why you’re being called out.
– And more important of all, do all of the above without expecting any special reward! Your reward is to be participating in creating a better world that’s fair for everybody. You don’t get to be a “special” man, you don’t get free passes for anything, you don’t get to stand out for being decent. If you feel you deserve anything extra for being a decent human being, that’s your male entitlement at work. Afterall, if you’re helping women to make yourself look good, you are not helping at all.
Hope the info’s useful!
Quite useful, indeed! This was written by a young blogger who describes herself as “The Angry Hairy Lesbian Feminist they’ve warned you about,”and her point is exactly correct: No man can ever expect praise from a feminist, because nothing any man does can ever qualify him for the admiration, trust or respect of a feminist. Because he is male (and therefore, by feminist definition, an oppressor) he is undeserving of love from any female (who is, by definition, his victim).
The Boston Marathon bombers’ mosque, the Islamic Society of Boston (ISB), employs an intensive radicalizing program aimed at Boston’s historically moderate Muslim community, especially at its youth. It’s called “Tarbiya,” which is Arabic for “growth and refinement.” It is not something that is practiced as part of classical mainstream Islam.
APT has obtained several curriculum documents created by ISB-affiliated groups, which describe exactly what is taught and when, with assignments detailed down to book and page number. We are making the most detailed and traceable of these documents availablehere and here. We will focus in this article on a particular Tarbiya program called “Young Muslims,” which was explicitly endorsed by Suhaib Webb, the Imam of the ISB’s mega-mosque in the Roxbury neighborhood of Boston. It lists books that all participants must read, and even includes page numbers for specific assignments (the document was formerly available at the program’s website, and can still be accessed through an archived version of the site).
The authors of many of these books are among the “Who’s Who” of radical Islamic ideologues. A lot of the books are available in the Boston Marathon bombers’ mosque’s library. Major focus is given to books by Hassan Al Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood; Said Qutb, the father of modern jihadism; Maulana Maududi, the father of political Islam on the Indian subcontinent; and Yusuf Qaradawi, the spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, whom the Anti-Defamation League calls the “Theologian of Terror.” Some of the books on the “must read” list have nothing to do with Islam, such as several books written by Howard Zinn, Noam Chomsky, and Michael Moore. Having young Muslims read a curriculum that includes far-left atheist authors of Jewish and Christian backgrounds shows that the goal of Tarbiya is not just to develop a Muslim’s spirituality, but also to develop within him a deep animosity to Western democracy.
The ISB and its political arm, the Muslim American Society (MAS), are very open about the program’s existence and even have websites dedicated to it. MAS teaches Tarbiya at each of its dozens of chapters across the United States, and the entire national Tarbiyaprogram happens to be led by the Imam of the Boston Marathon bombers’ ISB Cambridge mosque, Basyouni Nehela. MAS describes Tarbiya in these terms:
This followed 21 days of witness testimony, which revealed a number of unpleasant truths about Pao’s conduct as an employee of the firm and raised further, unpleasant questions about her household and personal circumstances.
Despite the verdict, feminist activists and their sympathizers in the tech media have sought to spin Pao’s defeat as a ‘win’ for women in Silicon Valley. They argue that Pao’s case has, somehow, shone a light on gender discrimination in tech, despite the fact that the jury found that Pao experienced none. It’s a contortion of which Houdini would be proud.
Let me give these over-eager gender activists some advice: you may want to think twice before adopting Pao as your victim du jour. Because evidence given during the trial reveals that she is anything but a victim. Work emails reveal her to be a callous and resentful employee who bullied colleagues and held grudges.
Her link to Buddy Fletcher, a man with a notorious reputation for frivolous discrimination lawsuits, also raises a very large question mark over her motivation in bringing the claims against Kleiner Perkins.
It’s worth first remembering that Kleiner Perkins was an odd target for a gender discrimination lawsuit. The firm has a much better track record of hiring female talent than its rivals. Women make up 20 per cent of the firm’s members, which is double the average for Silicon Valley venture capital firms. Throughout the trial, Kleiner’s attorneys were able to draw on a number of high-profile female venture capitalists who testified that the firm was one of the most female-friendly in Silicon Valley.
Kleiner maintained that Pao was let go not because she was a woman, but because she was an unpleasant person to work with. Given the result of the case, it’s clear that the jury was persuaded by Kleiner’s arguments, but there has been little discussion in the tech media of the evidence that persuaded them. So let’s dip our toe into some of it.
Kleiner’s attorneys didn’t have to look very far for evidence of Pao’s horrible personal failings. Emails from 2009 show Pao critcising her assistant for taking time off work to help her landlord, a non-English speaker, who had been in a serious car accident. Pao’s response to the domestic crisis was as follows:
“It’s great that you want to be helpful to your landlord. It would be better for me if you could come to work on time. Let me know if you think differently, but I think your job should be your priority.”
The woman had a heart of gold, as you can see.
But admonishing her staff for helping victims of road accidents was just one aspect of Pao’s sociopathy and selfishness. Bizarrely, she kept a chart listing “resentments” that she held over her colleagues at Kleiner Perkins. She also admitted to sending negative e-mails about coworkers behind their backs, and acknowledged that she had once bullied a colleague to tears.
It’s funny how none of this information has made it into the mainstream media or the tech press. They’re all desperate to present Pao as a victim because they’ve bought into a bizarre, self-flagellating narrative about how awful women have it in the tech industry. (They don’t – and especially not at Kleiner Perkins.)
Journalists have preferred to laud Pao as a feminist underdog – a brave victim with a social conscience trying to change society for the better – despite the fact that many of her victims were other women. It’s almost as if the media were blindly supporting Pao because of her gender. Which is ironic, really, isn’t it?
Considering the flimsiness of Pao’s case, it’s incredible that she ever thought it was worth the effort in the first place. Kleiner’s attorneys had originally intended to closely interrogate Pao’s motivations, but were stopped by the presiding judge, Harold Kahn, who argued that such a line of questioning would create a “sideshow.”
He’s not wrong: Pao’s most likely motivations are quite the show. You see, Ellen Pao isn’t the only one who’s been involved in high-profile legal disputes recently. Her husband, Alphonse Fletcher, is in deep legal and financial trouble too. His asset management firm was declared bankrupt in 2012, and he is currently being sued by three Louisana public pension funds. They allege that Fletcher’s asset management defrauded them of up to $145 million, and are now seeking to recover the funds.
How much was Pao seeking from Kleiner Perkins in damages? Oh. $144 million.
As if that weren’t suspicious enough, Fletcher also has a long history of engaging in highly questionable discrimination lawsuits. His first discrimination suit, launched in 1991, was mostly a failure. Fletcher was awarded $1.26 million – a modest sum for Wall Street – with most of the damages he claimed rejected. A later arbitration panel dismissed the case entirely.
According to Boston Magazine, Fletcher was nonetheless heralded as a champion of diversity:
“The arbitration award wasn’t really a victory for Fletcher, but the story that emerged in subsequent media reports was less nuanced: On Wall Street, went the narrative, even Harvard grads get discriminated against if they happen to be black. Buddy Fletcher, though, had fought back.”
The race baiting, special pleading, minority politics and grievance-mongering don’t end there. Fletcher is currently suing the Dakota, an elite apartment block in Manhattan, for – you guessed it! – racial discrimination. The Dakota’s crime? Refusing his application to add a fourth apartment to the three that he already owned in the building. Quite what this has to do with Fletcher’s skin colour, nobody has been able to tell me.
While a judge can arguably justify excluding these details from the courtroom, it is astonishing that they were excluded from media coverage of Fletcher and Pao’s legal history. Fletcher has staged a string of frivolous discrimination lawsuits and currently faces a $144 million lawsuit, and just happens to be married to Ellen Pao, a woman who demanded almost precisely the same sum... in what we now know was also a frivolous discrimination lawsuit.
You couldn’t, as British newspaper columnists like to say, make stuff this up.
While the media may have bought into Pao’s absurd victim narrative, ordinary internet users have not. In comment sections, on social media, and even on the #ThankYouEllenPao hashtag on Twitter, it’s clear that most people aren’t buying the spin. That’s why it’s alarming that Pao remains in charge of Reddit, one of the centres of user-curated content on the web.
There have already been reports that Pao may have been using her authority to suppress discussion of Fletcher’s history on the website. This has not gone down well with Reddit’s user base, who are notoriously anti-censorship. If the comments underneath this widely-discussed posting on /r/news are any guide, Redditors are not at all pleased with their new leadership.
Ellen Pao be able to rely on the slavish support of tech columnists in hock to outdated and discredited complaints about gender equality, but she has few other admirers. It isn’t hard to see why. Her past behaviour indicates she is a deeply unpleasant person who lacks empathy and is perfectly happy to bully and undermine her colleagues when it suits her – then cry foul when she sniffs out professional or financial advantage.
Multi-millionaire corporate bullies who use equality legislation to advance their own interests? Meet the new heroes of the San Francisco progressive left.