City Journal Winter 2016

Current Issue:

Winter 2016
Table of Contents
Tablet Editions
Click to visit City Journal California

Readers’ Comments

Heather Mac Donald
Onward, Gender Soldiers « Back to Story

View Comments (20)

Add New Comment:

To send your message, please enter the words you see in the distorted image below, in order and separated by a space, and click "Submit." If you cannot read the words below, please click here to receive a new challenge.

Comments will appear online. Please do not submit comments containing advertising or obscene language. Comments containing certain content, such as URLs, may not appear online until they have been reviewed by a moderator.

Showing 20 Comment(s) Subscribe by RSS
@Jeffrey Asher: You said Similar population - based quotas are not demanded by feminists for Christians, Jews, Moslems, atheists, Asians, Hispanics, Indians, Irish, etc.

Actually they also are not demanded for men. When a US college recent became concerned that 2/3s of its students were female and considered recruiting more males (as men ARE still over 49 percent of the population) the feminists along with the Obama DOJ immediately threatened to SUE them for "anti-female discrimination"

The current quota is "men need not apply". Simple as that.
Obama Administration:
Beginning on January 20, 2009, the Obama Administration set out to Annihilate America, to increase the devastation of the U.S. economics, to deface all American values, to demoralize, to destroy the American Constitution as well as any values left of America! After 8 years of what we thought was arrogance, corruption, deregulation, senseless wars, pro-rich tax laws, and depreciation of the economies in just the U.S, we became very aware that oBAMa was the true meaning of arrogance, corruption, deregulation, senseless wars, pro-Government tax laws, and total depreciation of the economies in the Whole World. Now we all need a major change to restore hope!
I had a good laugh when I read the Times article. Who appointed the Times as sex monitor anyway?

The old gray lady is dead and gone, replaced with something that doesn't in the least resemble journalism. And yes, the Times is that terrible - I squirm just reading the Science Times, which is the only section worth reading these days - the rest of the paper is worthless since there is no way that you can have confidence that the facts are as reported. (Yes, the NY Times has lost its credibility). But, even Science Times is filled to the brim with Democratic assumptions about the world, along with the usual biased reporting.

Still, watching the Obama Administration get hoisted on its own petard (I use that right?) was especailly gratifying. Idiots writing about fools, or perhaps the reverse, sad to say.
Well if nothing else, we are all equal in a toxic workplace that this nonsense has gotten us.
The Times' point is that whether or not the white male candidate is head-and-shoulders first, he should still not be chosen. Make the danged numbers, and then, within that constraint, you can pick the most meritorious person who fits the quotas.
My husband used to work at ACE - American Council on Education in Washington, DC - and knew he was leaving (Soon!) when the HR/Diversity woman stood up at an all staff meeting and said, "We're only 70% women, 50% African American - and we can do better - that's not good enough." One of the white guys (3) in the group actually raised his hand and offered the comment that what did they want? "100% African American women?" Needless to say - he also left before the month ended.
" ... a mere 7- to 8-percent variance from mathematically perfect representation ..." That claim of "perfect" assumes that a 50% quota for women is justified, based on population numbers.

Similar population - based quotas are not demanded by feminists for Christians, Jews, Moslems, atheists, Asians, Hispanics, Indians, Irish, etc.

Why not 50% women as garbage collectors, miners, front-line soldiers, airline pilots, oil roughnecks, construction crews; or 50% men as accepted applicants to universities, law schools, library and nursing schools?

Only one qualification should be demanded from candidates for garbage collectors to presidential committees: Competence.

In “Why g Matters,” Prof. Linda Gottfredson12 estimates that a minimum of IQ 120 is needed to be competitive in “high-level” jobs “… [and] the probability is that only 37% of the workforce at that level will be female”.13 At IQ 130 (+2SD), males comprise 82%; IQ 145 (+3SD), 88% and at IQ 160 (+4SD), associated with genius, males comprise 97%.

Therefore, the result of competence competition for high level jobs will result in a disproportionate number of men. Look at the sex proportion of CEOs in business and industry, especially technological industries. Enough with feminist grey-matter envy for high - paying jobs.
Nonsense. Obama appointed two women to the Supreme Court--people who will be serving our nation long after Obama out of his job in White google list of court of appeals etc and see how many women...then think about those the GOP bombed before they could even get named.
Alimbic: "However, I will say that with regard to the Times' article, at least the Times is being consistent in applying this lie to both sides."

I disagree. The "issue" such as it is, existed in full prior to the election, yet the Times waited until now to bring it up - why?

The Times report is disingenuous and actually a thinly disguised attempt to force Obama to appoint more women to replace departing officials. It's left inside politics at work.

But the bottom line is that Obama is all about Obama.. not "women", not "blacks" and certainly not about the nation.
"Who would have guessed that the Obama White House still possessed enough lingering innocence regarding gender politics to release such a red flag to the media..."

You presume too much about Obama's motives. It is all about him - not women, not the nation, not anyone else.

A fair assessment of his administration shows that his moves toward women are bribes (Free (to women) Contraceptives!) to get their votes - not earnest policies to help "equality".

The bottom line with Obama is: "Deal with it b*tches, I won..."
Having a highly intelligent though undereducated mother and having just married a very clever wife I always wondered how there could be discriminaton against women though I did hear, in the early 1960s. of major law firms which simply had an atmosphere which was unpleasant for women. When, in the mid 70s I was elected as a legislator I noticed that females had an advantage over the (majority) males in caucus votes for positions on committees and the like. Clearly males (though maybe only as an instinctive ego thing) regarded other males as the real competition and therefore gave votes to females ahead of other males unless they could stitch up a deal which was likely to hold and get themselves elected immediately.
Draft only women into the military until the number of women killed and wounded in action in America's wars equals the number of men. Increase prosecutions, convictions and jail time for women until the number of incarcerated women equals that of men. Subsidize husbands who stay at home and care for the kids until their numbers equal those of women. And, we need more female coal miners, trash collectors and loggers. I'm sick of all this discrimination. Let women share equally in ALL activities.
A few months ago Michelle Obama did an interview in which she said that Barack spends his day surrounded by attractive women, implying that he has temptations all around him. That struck me as a peculiar thing for a wife to say. Later, when it became clear that he is in fact surrounded by men, Michelle's comment seemed like a cover story for a husband who is more interested in men than women.
I completely agree that the Obama admin would give preference to women and minorities when making appointments.

But Bush had the same complaints; and both his actual choices and the political acumen of his advisors demonstrate that he also would appoint a woman or a minority whenever he could.

I'm just extremely glad to see the NYTimes apply the same standard to both parties for a change.
OH, that's nothing. I went to an industry event (women in various media) at the Players' Club in Manhattan several years ago, not long after the September 11th attacks. The dead were still being combed out of the ashes. . . . The speaker was Emily Mann, artistic director of the prestigious and wealthy Princeton McCarter Theater, who has enjoyed a golden career in the theater since her privileged girlhood at Princeton.

At one point, she referred to the oppression of women in Afghanistan [under the Taliban]: the audience of women held their breath. Then she said, "But WE in America are ALSO oppressed -- no woman has yet won the Tony Award for Directing!" The audience exhaled gustily and broke into applause. What a RELIEF to these idiots that she didn't ask us to drop our [selfish and colossally trivial] concerns with Tony awards (she was moaning about that for herself, natch) to fight Actual Horrors abroad. Especially if it meant being patriotic and stuff. ICK.

I'd never seen anything so disgraceful in my life. It was sickening. And Miz Mann looked out over the audience and smiled beatifically, like a cat that just licked up some cream.
Oh yes, of course.... Progressive liberals like Obama should (automatically and obviously) be immune to the dribble that conservatives constantly face regarding this same issue. I personally think this whole shake down tactic which has been used against honest and non prejudiced conservatives (ad lib) is wrong and should never be considered with anything but disdain when used against anyone. However, I will say that with regard to the Times' article, at least the Times is being consistent in applying this lie to both sides. In my experience the least tolerant are the liberals, the most racist are the blacks, and the most hate filled and violent are the peace activists.
Not mentioned in the article is the unequal pay status women labor under in the WH staff.
The fact that striving for a precise X Chromosome count is more important than selecting the most qualified candidate -- regardless of gender -- just shows you how screwed up the country has become.
It just shows what low importance we REALLY ascribe to politics. If you, or a member of the NYT, were going to be operated on, would you or (careful here) she insist that 50% of the team were women?
femalesforendingtherealsexism January 19, 2013 at 3:09 AM
Dead on article. Loved the whole thing.
These two gems are great : "No elite organization today fails to incorporate OPPRESSIVE gender and race consciousness into its every hiring and promotion decision." "That feminists now view a mere 7- to 8-percent variance from mathematically perfect representation as a casus belli shows how deep is their commitment to maintaining female victim status and HOW IMPERIALISTIC ARE THEIR AMBITIONS." (all caps added for emphasis)