We are already aware of the fact that the slut-feminist movement has been spending endless hours and dollars trying to find some female input in the past. They have no hesitation ofcourse about lying about female input at all, as has been demonstrated by the false claim that
was actually, really the one who came up with the "Theory of Relativity". They have been trying to claim that all Einstein ever did was take the credit. It fits in very nicely with their false mantra of "Behind every good man is..."(fill in your response)..
They are so relentless, as they search, peak, prod and poke around old historical documents trying to justify their claims and any minutiae of evidence will suffice. The Einstein situation came about because "she" actually went to College, amongst other claims, and there was their kick to claim their miss-informative lies. One failed to pose the question about whether or not Einstein would enjoy being married to a total idiot or an educated female, that's entirely besides their point ofcourse. That would also destroy the other slut-feminist mantra that "Men are afraid of "smart" women"..
So they continue to ignore all those massive achievements women have undertaken over the last forty odd years, where women have clearly demonstrated how superior they really are in everything they touch and do, regardless of the discipline applied. Their endless demands have ensured their own preferential treatment and what do we have to show for it. Well, as the article demonstrates, very little..
Women are very adaptable as we have already witnessed, the first day of marriage will demonstrate that clearly. She automatically fits into the doctor, engineer, IT specialist partner role very easily as they do when attending the corridors of learning. Their excellent memories and adaptation skills have been firmly ensconced into the curriculum to favour their learning methodology, but when we look at female innovation, discoveries or any method or process of being involved in making original or major changes to any of those fields, we are sadly disappointed. The last fifty years has just reconfirmed it and demonstrate that it is men who make the world go round and it's women just enjoying the ride. Whatever that involves. Maybe they are smarter about not sacrificing their life and social time to work and prefer those challenges, that we have already witnessed..
But what is really happening is that men are loosing the opportunity at being educated as preference is given to women, those men may have been the future explorers, innovators and researchers to better our lives in one way or another, as they have already demonstrated for so long. But to slut-feminists this is totally irrelevant as their politically correct, positive discrimination ensures those men are relegated to second class citizenry..
Last Thursday, the conjunction of Australian Women's History Month and International Women's Day, was also the day of Sydney's Great Deluge. Nature wept. She stormed and stamped her feet. Yea, and mightily she flooded. What was she trying to tell us?
Just the name, Women's History Month, sounds both menstrual and hysterical, reminding me that there is, in fact, an etymological link - hystera being Greek for womb. Normally I'd just stay home.
But this year the month is themed Women with a Plan, celebrating long-forgotten women architects, planners and landscapers. What can you do?
Advertisement: Story continues below
The mission statement is arresting. Women with a Plan declares that its overriding goal is "to turn the extraordinary into the ordinary". And by god, I think they've done it.
''You, Milly, take Witless, Humourless and Gormless; Molly do Box-ticking and Committee-going and Mandy, Absolutely No Intellectual Content Whatsoever. That way, with all bases covered (like grannie's crocheted cushions) we'll be quite certain to snatch mediocrity from any threat of glory.''
I'm not just being mean here. Twenty-four women grace the website. The historian Dr Bronwyn Hanna has documented scores more. Yet it is the month's stated aim to glorify not their achievements, of which there are disturbingly few, but simply their existence.
"We want to remove any surprise at the number of women among the urban planners, architects, and landscape architects who shaped our surroundings, and our history in the past century."
The subtext to this - and to all "women's history" - is that legions of women have been, wittingly or otherwise, blanked out. Redacted, in post-Assange parlance.
This is hard to prove, since it involves re-mining the soil for overlooked nuggets and trying to tell fool's gold from the real thing.
To mark the lunar conjunction of day and month, and to further this polemical cause, Hanna gave a talk on Florence Taylor, widely celebrated as Australia's first female architect. I went along, hoping to be proved wrong.
I'd been hoping this for years. As a postgrad I had assiduously combed the magazine,
Building, that Taylor and her husband, George Taylor, published for 50 years. I sought ideas, wit or insight. But no.
Building, while an excellent historical record, was a dull and provincial little mag, designed mainly as a vector for advertising.
In 2008, in the same vain hope, I'd examined the Museum of Sydney show that put Taylor among Sydney's ''top 10 visionaries'' - with Phillip, Macquarie, Bradfield and Seidler. But again, her work was pale, narrow and dull.
This year, on International Women's Day, I nurtured the same hope of finding that Taylor had, after all, meant something. That in our slender history of creative ideas, she had signified. But honestly - did she?
Florence Taylor enrolled in architecture at Sydney Tech in Harris Street in 1899. She completed her studies but (like most students) never received a diploma, began her articles but was never admitted to the institute, worked as an assistant for a couple of years but never registered. Some of this, certainly, evinced outright sexism, which is a PhD thesis in itself. Like most PhD theses, however, it misses the point. The only question about Taylor-as-architect that matters is, was she any good?
But since not one building exists that is clearly and definitively from her mind, as well as her hand, we've no idea. Even those cottages that could, possibly, be hers are pattern-book jobs; comfortable, conservative, dull.
Yet she is far more celebrated than her wildly more-talented husband George - architect, cartoonist, writer, aviator. He, being male, must compete with other males, and so is ignored.
This is where affirmative action and I come to grief. It is both hypocritical, in employing precisely the same kind of double standard it means to oppose, and ineffectual, since two untruths can never make a truth.
It's also downright insulting. Never mind, dearie, whether you built anything, just becoming an architect was brave. And that's enough - for a woman. Affirmative action insults the very people it is meant to assist.
