Category Archives: Affirmative action

How men are being marginalized by affirmative action programs

So what does “getting” more women in STEM mean?

So what does “getting” more women in STEM mean?

So what does this push to get more women in STEM mean? What are the IMPLICATIONS?

Well the Obama administration’s push to use Title IX to get more women in STEM (implying they’ll push women who aren’t necessarily interested in STEM in while forcing men who are interested out of STEM fields –that’s what happens when you have a mandatory arbitrary quota system in place) ultimately comes down to how men are being marginalized throughout society, and particularly the erosion of due process rights for men.

What exactly does this mean? Well men’s due process in the areas of academia, sexual assault accusations, domestic violence accusations, criminal accusations (when made by a woman), child custody and divorce settlement have been eroded in North America (and elsewhere in the world) to the point where they are almost non-existent.

To boot, most men don’t even know their due process rights are being infringed upon and even outright ignored!!!

Take these videos for example:

Here, you see how gender unidirectional “Domestic Violence” laws and restraining orders are used to strip men of their freedom and children (basically their lives) without due process, particularly used by women to get an upper hand during a divorce.

Here you see how one complaint of “being scared” by a woman led to a man being killed in his own home by police.

Here you see how this man is being denied his right to a jury trial!

These are just a few examples, there are many more, some of which will be shared on this blog.

This month of December, we will address and cover various issues and cases where due process for males is either severely limited, or completely disregarded, and the impact this has on men, women, their families, and society in general.

We are all human.

This has been Datte Hakamura, reminding you that Men Matter Too.

Consequences of forcing more women in STEM

Consequences of forcing more women in STEM

So as we saw last week, many women who go in STEM fields aren’t really interesting in pursuing long careers in STEM, they effectively retire after having kids, or just retire altogether.


So I really need to ask: What are the benefits of “getting” more women in STEM? Will it result in better STEM fields or industry? Will humanity gain more knowledge from people who are only in STEM half-heartedly, “just because it’s popular” or “just going with the flow” and then don’t push themselves or work hard and quit after just a few years?

Would society be better served by getting more people (men and women) who really are interested in STEM into STEM rather than focusing on artificially inserting people not-that-interested based on some superficial group-identity?

I’d really like to hear your thoughts on this.

Please comment below.

Part 2 of “Get More Women in STEM”

Part 2 of “Get More Women in STEM”

Well, since I haven’t yet gotten an answer on why getting women in STEM (a field most of them have no interest in) is so important, let’s look quickly at some of the resources devoted to that sole goal.

That’s right, the White House.

“If we’re going to out-innovate and out-educate the rest of the world, we’ve got to open doors for everyone. We need all hands on deck, and that means clearing hurdles for women and girls as they navigate careers in science, technology, engineering, and math.”

— First Lady Michelle Obama, September 26, 2011

So there you have it, only girls, not reason given why, just open the doors (as if they’re closed to women –citation still needed). Why not help men get in as well? Why not just help removing hurdles for all people?

But no, men’s issues are invisible to her, and it’s only the women she cares about. Nevermind that most scientific and technological achievements have been accomplished by men throughout history, no, let’s not even acknowledge that. Let’s just say these great men like Edison, and Tesla, and Einstein, and Heisenberg, and Planck were “privileged” (a common feminist shaming tactic) and had “hurdles removed” for them (which is demonstrably false). Let’s just shit on all the hard work it takes to accomplish something and try to get people in through the back door and call it “achievement”.

(and I should point out that many female scientists –like Marie Curie- have done great contributions to humanity as well in the past, did they do it by having someone “get them into STEM”? No. They worked for their accomplishments, just like the men did)

Don’t believe the hype.

Get More Women in STEM!!

Get more women in STEM!!

Have you noticed all the push by feminists to “get more women in STEM” (Science, Technology, Engineering and Math)? “Oh women are under-represented in these fields”, “these fields are male-dominated”. And yes, there are more men than women working in these fields, but so what?

Are women being “kept out”? Is there some sexist discriminatory patriarchal conspiracy at work here? Or is the fact that women are choosing not to go into these fields just the result of culture (patriarchy) and gender roles (patriarchy), as many feminists will claim? (That’s right, feminists honestly believe that women are incapable of making their own choices. Who’s the misogynist here?)

This is a typical pattern, whenever a field/group/activity begins to be popular to the mainstream population, feminists try to infiltrate it, take it over and change it to suit their misandrist agenda. They will claim sexism, discrimination, harassment/hostile environment, the “boys’ club”, patriarchy and misogyny, backing these allegations with either nothing concrete or very biased and cherry-picked stats and examples.

I say “no more”.

This month of November, you and I, kind reader, will be delving more into the issue. We will examine and deconstruct arguments and rationales made, as well as try to challenge those pushing for this agenda.

Let’s begin:

Why are there so few women in STEM fields? Well for starters, one might consider it’s a matter of choice, personal interests, men are more drawn to STEM fields just like women are more drawn to being stylists or nurses.

See also:

Notice that lady that says she’s now quit her job to be a stay-at-home mom (aka parasite)? Well yes, it’s a choice she’s making. Why aren’t feminists complaining that women can make choices? (I’m not and I don’t know any MRA that is) And yet feminists complain about the end result of women’s choices, the overall proportion of women in STEM fields, only that they blame it on men.

So what now?

Well here’s what I did: I started engaging and questioning (in public view, ofc).

Here is a typical article (at a non-feminist blog, but they often refer to an investor as “she”, not “he or she”, so it seems rather blue-pill at least)  where they address the issue (as part of a professional social media marketing, PR, VC, and HR blog). And I asked the author the simple questions:

Salima, are you working in STEM? No? That’s right, you’re working in HR. Then
1) Why are you complaining about “not enough” women working in STEM?
2) Why aren’t you working in STEM? (aren’t you part of the problem?)
3) “Social sciences” is not STEM, and it’s a choice. Why do you expect those women (like you) to want to go work in STEM (unlike you)?
4) Why do you/we “need” more women in STEM? For what purpose?
I’d seriously like to know, also:
5) Why aren’t you also trying to address the under-representation of men in “social science” jobs? Why only the women?

So a week went by with no reply and I asked her on this blog post:

Hi Salima, you haven’t responded to my inquiry on your first blog on this subject, so I’ll ask here:
Why didn’t you go into tech/STEM? (Why aren’t you taking initiative/leadership and being a role model for other women?)
I’d sincerely like to know (I am currently researching this topic).
Thank you.

If you read both articles, they are essentially blaming “the culture” and suggesting making accommodation just to get more women in STEM (without making a case as to why, or what the benefits would be).

You can also see here:

Where I simply asked:

Question: what does “being a woman” have to do with anything? Why not 5 short tech entrepreneurs, or 5 old tech entrepreneurs, or 5 white tech entrepreneurs. Should a woman receive special accolades just for doing the same thing a man does? Isn’t that looking down on women?

Now why do I do this? Because getting the message out and starting the conversation in wider society is important to effect change. The radical feminists won’t care about arguments or reason, but the rest of society might.

Throughout the rest of November, I will be covering more on this topic, as well as trying to engage people in dialogue. I encourage you to do the same.

As always, I wish you all the best my brothers (and sisters), I’ll see you next week (if not sooner).