Post: #1

Summary: Disney, Mattel, Hasbro, Viacom, etc. have been given a script their female characters have to play by. Girls and women must now be portrayed in go-girl roles.

One more nail in the coffin...

http://entertainment.slashdot.org/story/...use-google

Quote:Mattel came under fire last November over its portrayal of Computer Engineer Barbie as incompetent. But the toymaker is now drawing kudos for its new Imagine the Possibilities Barbie ad campaign (video), which shows little girls pretending to be professionals in real-life settings, including a college professor lecturing students about the brain. Ad Age, however, is cynical of the empowering spin on Barbie, which it says "comes across as a manipulative way to silence criticism." Interestingly, some of that criticism may have come from the White House.

WH Visitor Records show that Barbie's brainy makeover came after Mattel execs — Evelyn Mazzocco, Julia Pistor, Heather Lazarus — were summoned to the White House last April to meet with the White House Council on Women and Girls. A little Googling suggests other attendees at the sit-down included representatives of the nation's leading toy makers (Disney Consumer, Nickelodeon, Hasbro, American Girl), media giants (Disney Channels, Viacom, TIME, Scholastic, Univision, Participant Media, Cartoon Network, Netflix), retailers (Walmart, Target), educators, scientists, the U.S. Dept. of Education (including the Deputy Director of Michelle Obama's Reach Higher Initiative), philanthropists (Rockefeller, Harnisch Foundations) — and Google. Representing Google was CS Education in Media Program Manager Julie Ann Crommett, who has worked with Disney to shape programming to inspire girls to pursue CS in conjunction with the search giant's $50 million Made With Code initiative.

Post: #2

Feminists can say what they want about "patriarchy," but there has never been government pressure on private companies to favor one gender in all facets of life.

If this is legit, think about the implications of this. They're justifying pressuring the whole world to support "positive portrayals" for girls, excluding boys in the process. How do they justify that? By citing that society was "anti-girl" eighty years ago? To respond to that, even then there were not gender-defining government sit-downs and a clear sense of contempt for strong examples of one gender that these meetings convey.

But worse than that, there's absolutely no pressure these days to "weaken" girls, or even discourage them from STEM jobs. They've institutionalized the divide even more.

Our government and society are full-speed on pushing men into complete second-class citizenry.

Prediction: an end to male suffrage will be introduced as a legitimate way to remove the "toxic masculine pressure" on women that is just inevitable with men having the same legal citizen status as women.

This, right here, is a huge step toward that. Starve young boys of positive role models and encouraging messages because girls need it at their expense. The state has been forced to push for one gender and not another, in a time when both are treated the same—and when they aren't, it's because women want to default to the station nature gave them. So this is only used to push women above men. To starve our sex from all encouragement, to starve our sex of a place in this society. This is the state's cultural Holodomor on men.

Post: #3

(11-08-2015 09:48 PM)Tex Wrote:  Prediction: an end to male suffrage will be introduced as a legitimate way to remove the "toxic masculine pressure" on women that is just inevitable with men having the same legal citizen status as women.

This, right here, is a huge step toward that. Starve young boys of positive role models and encouraging messages because girls need it at their expense. The state has been forced to push for one gender and not another, in a time when both are treated the same—and when they aren't, it's because women want to default to the station nature gave them. So this is only used to push women above men. To starve our sex from all encouragement, to starve our sex of a place in this society. This is the state's cultural Holodomor on men.

That pretty much hits it on the head. However, I don't think they'll do it in such a direct and overt way (ending men's suffrage), because that would take a decade and would probably need support from the Senate.

"Women in STEM" has been a hot topic amongst social justice warriors for the past couple of years. They want to be a part of the technology boom and benefit from its sky-high wages, but since they don't have the necessary STEM skills, they've decided to do it through "positive discrimination".

It's very easy to predict how it will work... all you need to do is take a look at their model country: Sweden. The Swedes have already placed gender quotas on companies. So, for example, instead of an engineer at Apple or Goole being paid $200k per year, he'll be paid $100k and they'll have a token vagina on the payroll for $100k to meet their equality quotas. Alternatively, the company could pay both of them $200k and the shareholders would get a lower return. That is how "positive discrimination" works.

Slashdot is a good site to watch because, being a technology news site, it covers a lot of the political debate surrounding the "women in STEM" meme. Most of its readers and contributors are engineers, so they have a low tolerance for bullshit and tend to report things as they are, not wrapped in political correctness.

Topics that regularly come up include:

- teaching girls to write code. A lot of girls-only initiatives are receiving state funding, as Tex predicted.

- tech companies are being forced to release statistics on the number of women, faggots and minorities they employ.

- frivolous lawsuits filed by women (usually in management roles) who were dismissed for incompetence. Ellen Pao is the most high-profile case so far.