Showing posts with label Sexism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sexism. Show all posts

Monday, December 11, 2017

I have a radical sexual idea–a kind of dream.

I have a radical sexual idea–a kind of dream.

Let’s re-re-define marriage as the conjugal union of husband and wife–the unique form of relationship that is ordered to and would naturally be fulfilled by the coming to be and rearing of children together. Let’s regard the social role of marriage as uniting a man and woman as husband and wife to be father and mother to any children born of their union, thus conferring upon those children the inestimable blessing of being brought up in the committed love of the two people whose becoming one in an act of marital communion gave them the gift of life, and further providing those children with the benefit of both paternal and maternal examples, influences, and care.
Now here comes the really radical part. Let’s view sex as having its meaning and significance in expressing in the most intimate and profound way the conjugal love and commitment of the spouses. Let’s understand it as uniting them as one-flesh in a uniquely comprehensive sharing of life–a sharing at all levels of their being as human persons, the biological, the affective, the rational-volitional and spiritual. Let’s regard marital love and commitment as the very principle of sexual morality, the normative basis for distinguishing upright from unworthy sexual conduct. Let’s embrace a set of virtues that guard us against objectifying others (and indeed ourselves) and treating human beings (others or ourselves) as mere means of gratification.
Let’s respect each other’s inherent worth and human dignity by honoring each other in all aspects of our being, including its sexual dimension, and never treating sex as a way of asserting, expressing, or exercising power over others. Let’s not deceive ourselves into supposing that virtue in the sexual dimension of our lives is merely a matter of gaining consent from an object of our desires to use him or her to satisfy our lust. Let us not reduce ourselves to seducers or sirens.
Sex has become depersonalized in our culture and in cultures like ours–and the carnage of the sexual revolution that we now see all around us is the appalling testament to that fact. Let’s re-personalize it.

Monday, October 10, 2016

Transcript of Trump Smacking Hillary down when tape brought up

Transcript of Trump Smacking Hillary down when tape brought up

It was locker room talk, as I told you. That was locker room talk. I’m not proud of it. I am a person who has great respect for people, for my family, for the people of this country. And certainly, I’m not proud of it. But that was something that happened.

If you look at Bill Clinton, far worse. Mine are words, and his was action. His was what he’s done to women. There’s never been anybody in the history politics in this nation that’s been so abusive to women. So you can say any way you want to say it, but Bill Clinton was abusive to women.

Hillary Clinton attacked those same women and attacked them viciously. Four of them here tonight. One of the women, who is a wonderful woman, at 12 years old, was raped at 12. Her client she represented got him off, and she’s seen laughing on two separate occasions, laughing at the girl who was raped. Kathy Shelton, that young woman is here with us tonight.

So don’t tell me about words. I am absolutely — I apologize for those words. But it is things that people say. But what President Clinton did, he was impeached, he lost his license to practice law. He had to pay an $850,000 fine to one of the women. Paula Jones, who’s also here tonight.

And I will tell you that when Hillary brings up a point like that and she talks about words that I said 11 years ago, I think it’s disgraceful, and I think she should be ashamed of herself, if you want to know the truth.

(APPLAUSE)

Tuesday, June 21, 2016

Hillary: Don’t believe that GOP conducting war on women

Don’t believe that GOP conducting war on women

Regarding Felicia Duncan’s letter to the editor, “Clinton will be perfect as first woman president” (June 16): Go ahead and vote for Hillary Clinton if you like her, but don’t fall victim to the media hype about the so-called Republican war on women.
Take a few hours to read Katie Pavlich’s book, “Assault and Flattery: The Truth about the Left and their War on Women.”
Few people remember that Democrats had to be led, kicking and screaming, to give women the right to vote, or that the first African-American congresswoman, Jeannette Rankin, was a Republican.
From Hollywood to D.C., this eye opening book documents overwhelming examples of liberals’ own war on women.
Furthermore, the media are complicit in this war, silent when they should be outraged on behalf of their victims.
Read this well-documented book to get a look at the other side of the picture before casting your ballot this November.

Monday, April 25, 2016

Contraceptives reduce child poverty, teen pregnancies and abortions or do they?

Contraceptives reduce child poverty, teen pregnancies and abortions or do they?

One way to reduce childhood poverty is to reduce teen pregnancies. Research cited by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention demonstrate that reducing teen pregnancy is a critical and effective way to combat child poverty. So, with all the free access to birth control, why do we continue to have teen pregnancies?

The background
The research shows that teen pregnancy and birth are significant contributors to high school dropout rates among girls. Only about 50 percent of teen mothers receive a high school diploma by age 22 compared to about 90 percent of women who had not given birth during adolescence. The children of teenage mothers are more likely to have lower school achievement and drop out of high school, have more health problems, be incarcerated during adolescence, give birth as a teen, and face unemployment as a young adult. Where are the fathers? Not being responsible or accountable.

The CDC has declared teen pregnancy a public health priority and “winnable battle” that should be attacked using evidence-based teen pregnancy prevention programs with access to youth-friendly clinical services including birth control.  We do this while teen pregnancies continue.

It is also good news that teen pregnancies (as well as teen births and abortions) have steadily decreased, especially since 2008. Even so they remain unacceptably high.

What is driving the decrease in teen pregnancies?
The respected independent Guttmacher Institute just released a study that documents the decrease in teen pregnancies to historic lows since their peak in 1990. The study suggests that increased access to long-acting, reversible contraceptives like IUD’s and implants (LARC’s) are making a difference.

The study says about recent declines, “it appears likely that recent changes in contraceptive use are driving the reduction. There is evidence that contraceptive practices have improved among older teens. A recent study found that the proportion of 18- to 19-year-old women, who report using long-acting reversible contraceptive methods tripled between 2007 and 2009, and promotion and acceptance of these methods among teens and young adult women has increased.” A prior analysis found that contraceptives accounted for more than 80 percent of the decline in teen pregnancies while abstinence accounted for about 14 percent.

The bad news is that the Guttmacher study finds that the rate of decline in teen pregnancies for teens of color lags behind the decline for white teens. Why?
Studies in the state of Colorado and the city of St. Louis, where free or affordable, long-acting reversible contraceptives were made available to teens show the effectiveness of access to those contraceptives. The program in Colorado resulted in a reduction by 29 percent in teen births. In St. Louis, teen births declined to 34 per 1,000 teens versus the national average of 158.5 per thousand.

The cost to all of us from teen births is significant. In 2010, teen births cost the U.S. nearly $10 billion in increased public assistance and health care and income lost to lower educational attainment and reduced earnings among children born to teen mothers. That is spending that will be reduced when we reduce child poverty.
While many clinics as well as Planned Parenthood are providing much needed access to contraceptives and education which reduce teen pregnancies and combat child poverty, teens under 17 continue unabated.

Community efforts to fight child poverty that include access to contraceptives and evidence-based education to reduce teen pregnancies and the child poverty they cause. However, there is still a missing link. That is, impressing upon these young people the consequences and accountability of teen pregnancies. As this narrative explains, teen pregnancy should be a “winnable battle. However, in addition to contraceptives it comes down to the individual making right decisions.


It also makes sense that anyone who seeks to reduce the number of abortions start by driving responsibility and accountability to the individual level.

Thursday, November 12, 2015

Military Defense Analysis: WE’RE SHOOTING OURSELVES IN THE FOOT

Military Defense Analysis: WE’RE SHOOTING OURSELVES IN THE FOOT

By: Lt. Col (Ret.) JW DeLoach
JW DeLoach is a retired USAF Officer & Greater Nashville Area Program Manager. He previously served at HQ Air Force A3/5, Commanded Defense Language Institute Operations Squadron, is largely to blame for the AFSOC NSAv fleet, did some stuff at JSOC, and had the privilege of flying the four fans of freedom (C-130H & MC-130H) with the 40th Airlift Squadron and the 7th Special Operations Squadron.

Historically, huge bureaucracies have habitually tried solving complex problems with well-intentioned but ultimately ineffective solutions. Because of the nature of politics, legislators are often under pressure to be seen doing something even if there are predictable negative outcomes. The solutions often help only the vote-seeking legislators but ultimately hurt those used to sell the legislation – the dynamic of the famous American “positive injury.”
Many equality-themed solutions have been levied on the Department of Defense (DoD) which ignore well-understood human processes which are the backbone of an excellence-minded meritocracy; specifically, mandates which artificially “equalize” unequal individuals actually hurt the cause of the people needing help. This is precisely the case for women in the military. By way of gender (lower) physical standards, manipulated graduation orders of merit, differential training washout procedures, female-only commitment relief policies…military women exist in a separate but unequal universe from the male military members. Some results are predictable – unqualified personnel allowed in harm’s way who are a danger to themselves and others. Think “layman playing NFL offensive line.” Other unintended negative impacts are more subtle, such as undermining and devaluing the accomplishments of women who are able to meet the training standards. Figuratively and literally our well-intentioned policies shoot qualified, exceptionally talented female military members in the foot.
Military operations are complex & dangerous at the best of times (hat tip Clauswitz). Senior military leaders’ jobs are complicated by civilian leaders who are often not deeply familiar with military operations and are nearly always from the professional political class. That means many of the civilian directives are driven by factors contrary to effective & safe military operations.
Many well-intentioned “experts” view the military as a huge, compliant social experiment. With the wave of a pen, civilian leaders are able to mandate their favorite social policies into reality despite the fact that DoD (even more than the NFL or Olympics) should be a meritocracy. Americans are very comfortable with talent-driven sports and we should become equally comfortable with a talent-based military who risk life & limb to execute national policy.
Much discussion surrounding the recent female Ranger school graduates indicates most Americans do not understand the status quo in the DoD. Despite Hillary Clinton’s suggestion that she was barred from USMC due to gender, women have long played an important role in US Armed Forces. When additional human capital was needed, American women have always stepped up and applied their skills to various war efforts as needed and able. The relatively new political twist on gender policy is the use of differential standards to manage a gender quota by rank and career field. This “relative fitness” approach makes sense at a crossfit gym or as a justification for separate men’s and women’s basketball teams but in combat each soldier operates side-by-side as one unit. In a scenario where speed, endurance or sheer strength are needed…it is irrelevant if a soldier is “strong for a girl” – what matters is his/her raw ability.

Further, selective career fields must take the best qualified regardless of gender and without artificially manipulating the order of merit in an inadvertently hurtful attempt to “level the playing field.” If held to male standards women are more than capable to rise to the occasion, though perhaps at lower numbers and slower rate than desired by the political leadership.
Previous accommodations successfully put women in “non-combat” roles such as Supply, Ground/Air Mobility and Space/Missile crew members. However, decades of boots on the ground in the Middle East have shown that nearly all career fields are ultimately combat roles. No one was helped by this artificial division. For a woman to be effective and respected (by any gender) in any combat/combat-support role, she must meet the same standards as the men. Diversity cannot be an end unto itself without risking lives and undermining achievements of women who meet standards. The unequal standards meant to help women causes credible women to be eternally suspect and scrutinized by their peers as well as putting them at risk to themselves and others.
Quotas are enforced in many ways but mainly through headquarters’ pressure on subordinate leaders across the Military Service. This pressure results in many unhelpful actions – recruiting less qualified candidates; commissioning sources adjusting their graduation order of merit; gender-only, non-merit assignments (USAF’s “pink jets”); lowered or eliminated physical standards; gender-specific training washout procedures; female-only awards; and policies which allow for expectant mothers (not fathers) to request early exit from a military service commitment. Most Americans are unaware that as early as 2012, services were pushed to lower or eliminate physical standards for dangerous and physically demanding career fields. The directives were unashamedly based on meeting gender quotas – not an effort to “improve the performance level of female trainees” or “recruit additional physically capable candidates.” Some Services complied readily while other Services maintained focus on standards and competence.
The most basic example is physical fitness: a soldier takes the Army PFT and achieves 50 pushups, 50 sit-ups & a 18:00 2-mile run. The male soldier would fail with a score 175/300. The female soldier would pass with a score of 236/300. A fit soldier performs 50 pushups, 80 sit-ups & 15:30 2-mile run. If that soldier is male, that is a passing score of 243/300. At the same level of body weight fitness, if the soldier is female, that is a perfect 300/300. Apart from the obvious fairness issue, most miss that this gift which keeps on giving – she (not he) is awarded an Army Physical Fitness Badge and the score/badge appears favorably on performance reports and award packages…for the same level of fitness.
Perhaps the cruelest effect of the current differential policy is on women who are able to meet standards without special deals. When a female joins a combat or combat-support unit, there is no way of knowing whether they earned their badge/beret/slot or if it was handed to her. This pressure to improve numbers by lowering the quality of graduates occurs in many demanding career fields across the DoD. Years ago, the Army’s Special Forces Qualification Course (SFQC) graduated international military student regardless of whether they met US standards or not. This policy changed because when working with partner nations’ Special Operations Forces, US personnel gave undue respect and credibility to the SFQC “graduates.” Standards were eventually raised to equalize the quality of graduates, though it necessarily meant a lower graduation rate.
The existing gender policies put women in the same situation – co-workers do not know if they are reliable or risky. The DoD has (with the best of intentions) created a very bad environment for women and men as well as putting the mission at risk. Capable women are not treated with requisite respect and incapable women are artificially supported. The differential policies often amplify resentment and exclusion due to inequality.
Are there solutions? Absolutely. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff could direct Armed Services to eliminate all discriminatory policies and quotas across the board. Services could scrub gender (name, gender, gender identifying info, etc) from any personnel records which might go before a promotion, award or assignment board. Gender-based awards could be eliminated overnight. If a Service sees value in differential standards, they could identify non-combat career fields where an “appearance/health/non-deployable” standard is more appropriate than a “combat readiness/deployable” standard which would apply to men and women alike. This would allow DoD to harness the talents of those whose skills (cyber warfare, Space & Missile, training, finance, personnel) do not match physically demanding and unique skill-based career fields.
For combat/deployable forces however, a gender-blind physical standard must apply if women in those roles are to be mission-effective and credible. As determined by each Service, pregnancy-based early exit policies could be eliminated, changed to a loan payback methodology, or extended to fathers in order to have a single gender-blind standard. Personnel metrics indicating gender imbalance (a particular rank or career field) should lead to a root cause analysis and applicable solution (improved outreach, additional pre-enlistment training, etc) without sacrificing quality of trainees or the graduation standards. If, as a nation, America desires women in combat on an equal footing, they should be added to the Selective Service program. The goal should always be a single standard, equal access, but not managed quotas.

Only by eliminating double standards and keeping those standards high can America stop putting the mission and members at risk. The current policies benefit primarily politicians but for unqualified and qualified personnel alike, they shoot military women in the foot

Monday, November 2, 2015

If the questioning of the candidates in the last GOP debate were fair, I have some tough questions for Hillary!

If the questioning of the candidates in the last GOP debate were fair, I have some tough questions for Hillary!

Polling shows that members of the media are seen as less trustworthy than bankers and auto mechanics, and about the same as lawyers.

During the debate, Ben Carson was asked about his questionable associations with a dietary supplement firm, while Marco Rubio was probed about his personal finances. If these subjects are fair game, and if journalists actually intend to “do it to Dems as well,” Hillary Clinton should be worried.

The next Democratic debate is Iowa on November 14, hosted by CBS. Here are a few suggestions for “tough, impertinent questions” for moderator John Dickinson to ask.

1. Madam Secretary, you recently described the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which you supported and your husband signed into law in 1996, as a “defensive action” designed to stall the “political momentum to amend the Constitution” to formally define marriage as between one man and one woman. BuzzFeed reporter Chris Geidner, who has won awards for his coverage of the LGBT beat, thoroughly examined the records of DOMA-related White House discussions at the time, and found no evidence for your claim. Are you trying to rewrite history?

2. Madam Secretary, after struggling to make ends meet upon leaving the White House, you and your husband have amassed an eight-figure fortune. The two of you have earned a combined $230 million since 2001. That’s Mitt Romney money. However, according to an investigation of publicly available records of your finances, there is about $50 million of the $230 million that is simply unaccounted for. Financial experts are stumped. Can you explain?

3. Madam Secretary, throughout your political careers, both you and your husband have associated with an impressive array of dubious individuals. Allow me to list a few examples:
  • Your political ally and campaign bundler Jon Corzine oversaw the collapse of a $1.6 billion financial firm and was subsequently sued by the federal government for mishandling funds.
  • Your former law partner, Webb Hubbell, pled guilty to federal corruption charges in 1994 and served time in prison.
  • You campaign donor, Hassan Nemazee, is serving a 12-year sentence for defrauding banks out of nearly $300 million.
  • Your campaign bundler, Sant Chatwal, pled guilty to federal charges of witness tampering and making illegal campaign contributions.
  • Sheldon Silver, the former New York state assembly speaker who was an early backer of your 2000 Senate campaign, was arrested earlier this year for taking bribes.
  • Your husband has on several occasions flown on a private jet affectionately nicknamed the “Lolita Express.” The owner of said jet, billionaire Jeffrey Epstein, is a convicted pedophile who owns a private island known as “Orgy Island.”
  • Your husband has also traveled frequently with Ron Burkle, his former adviser and campaign fundraiser, aboard a private jet affectionately nicknamed “Air Fuck One.”
Does this raise questions about your judgement?

4. Madam Secretary, your campaign has suggested that one your greatest accomplishment as secretary of state was agreeing to serve in the administration of “the man who defeated [you].” You served in the position until early 2013. However, President Obama wanted you to continue serving as his secretary of state for another year. But you didn’t. You chose to quit your job, and spent the next couple of years making millions of dollars by giving speeches to corporations and special interests groups. Did you need the money? And what does this say about your commitment to service? One of your early campaign ads includes the following statement: “When your president calls, you serve.” Why didn’t you answer the president’s call?


5. Family members of the victims of the Benghazi attack have called you a “serial liar,” and claim that in private conversations you blamed the attack on a YouTube video, even though emails indicate you knew that to be false. Are you calling the families of dead heroes liars?

Saturday, March 28, 2015

LETTERMAN'S TOP 10 REASONS TO VOTE DEMOCRAT


LETTERMAN'S TOP 10 REASONS TO VOTE DEMOCRAT


#10.  I vote Democrat because I love the fact that I can now marry whatever I want. I've decided to marry my German Shepherd.


#9.  I vote Democrat because I believe oil companies' profits of 4% on a gallon of gas are obscene, but the government taxing the same gallon at 15% isn't.


#8.  I vote Democrat because I believe the government will do a better job of spending the money I earn than I would.


#7.  I vote Democrat because Freedom of Speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.


#6.  I vote Democrat because I'm way too irresponsible to own a gun, and I know that my local police are all I need to protect me from murderers and thieves.  I am also thankful that we have a 911 service that gets police to your home in order to identify your body after a home invasion.


#5.  I vote Democrat because I'm not concerned about millions of babies being aborted so long as we keep all death row inmates alive and comfy.


#4.  I vote Democrat because I think illegal aliens have a right to free health care, education, and Social Security benefits, and we should take away Social Security from those who paid into it.


#3. I vote Democrat because I believe that businesses should not be allowed to make profits for themselves.  They need to break even and give the rest away to the government for redistribution as the Democrat Party sees fit.


 #2.  I vote Democrat because I believe liberal judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.

 #1 reason I vote Democrat is because I think it's better to pay $billions$ for oil to people who hate us, but not drill our own because it might upset some endangered beetle, gopher, or fish here in America. We don't care about the beetles, gophers, or fish in those other countries.



        "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits"... Albert Einstein 

Wednesday, February 25, 2015

If we're genuinely committed to improving the circumstances of women, we need to get the facts straight

If we're genuinely committed to improving the circumstances of women, we need to get the facts straight

by Christina Hoff Sommers

Much of what we hear about the plight of American women is false. Some faux facts have been repeated so often they are almost beyond the reach of critical analysis. Though they are baseless, these canards have become the foundation of Congressional debates, the inspiration for new legislation and the focus of college programs. Here are five of the most popular myths that should be rejected by all who are genuinely committed to improving the circumstances of women:

MYTH 1: Women are half the world’s population, working two-thirds of the world’s working hours, receiving 10% of the world’s income, owning less than 1% of the world’s property.

FACTS: This injustice confection is routinely quoted by advocacy groups, the World Bank, Oxfam and the United Nations. It is sheer fabrication. More than 15 years ago, Sussex University experts on gender and development Sally Baden and Anne Marie Goetz, repudiated the claim: “The figure was made up by someone working at the UN because it seemed to her to represent the scale of gender-based inequality at the time.” But there is no evidence that it was ever accurate, and it certainly is not today.
Precise figures do not exist, but no serious economist believes women earn only 10% of the world’s income or own only 1% of property. As one critic noted in an excellent debunking in The Atlantic, “U.S. women alone earn 5.4 percent of world income today.” Moreover, in African countries, where women have made far less progress than their Western and Asian counterparts, Yale economist Cheryl Doss found female land ownership ranged from 11% in Senegal to 54% in Rwanda and Burundi. Doss warns that “using unsubstantiated statistics for advocacy is counterproductive.” Bad data not only undermine credibility, they obstruct progress by making it impossible to measure change.

MYTH 2: Between 100,000 and 300,000 girls are pressed into sexual slavery each year in the United States.

FACTS: This sensational claim is a favorite of politicians, celebrities and journalists. Ashton Kutcher and Demi Moore turned it into a cause célèbre. Both conservatives and liberal reformers deploy it. Former President Jimmy Carter recently said that the sexual enslavement of girls in the U.S. today is worse than American slavery in the 19th century.
The source for the figure is a 2001 report on child sexual exploitation by University of Pennsylvania sociologists Richard Estes and Neil Alan Weiner. But their 100,000–300,000 estimate referred to children at risk for exploitation—not actual victims. When three reporters from the Village Voice questioned Estes on the number of children who are abducted and pressed into sexual slavery each year, he replied, “We’re talking about a few hundred people.” And this number is likely to include a lot of boys: According to a 2008 census of underage prostitutes in New York City, nearly half turned out to be male. A few hundred children is still a few hundred too many, but they will not be helped by thousand-fold inflation of their numbers.

MYTH 3: In the United States, 22%–35% of women who visit hospital emergency rooms do so because of domestic violence.

FACTS: This claim has appeared in countless fact sheets, books and articles—for example, in the leading textbook on family violence, Domestic Violence Law, and in the Penguin Atlas of Women in the World. The Penguin Atlas uses the emergency room figure to justify placing the U.S. on par with Uganda and Haiti for intimate violence.
What is the provenance? The Atlas provides no primary source, but the editor of Domestic Violence Law cites a 1997 Justice Department study, as well as a 2009 post on the Centers for Disease Control website. But the Justice Department and the CDC are not referring to the 40 million women who annually visit emergency rooms, but to women, numbering about 550,000 annually, who come to emergency rooms “for violence-related injuries.” Of these, approximately 37% were attacked by intimates. So, it’s not the case that 22%-35% of women who visit emergency rooms are there for domestic violence. The correct figure is less than half of 1%.

MYTH 4: One in five in college women will be sexually assaulted.

FACTS: This incendiary figure is everywhere in the media today. Journalists, senators and even President Obama cite it routinely. Can it be true that the American college campus is one of the most dangerous places on earth for women?
The one-in-five figure is based on the Campus Sexual Assault Study, commissioned by the National Institute of Justice and conducted from 2005 to 2007. Two prominent criminologists, Northeastern University’s James Alan Fox and Mount Holyoke College’s Richard Moran, have noted its weaknesses:
“The estimated 19% sexual assault rate among college women is based on a survey at two large four-year universities, which might not accurately reflect our nation’s colleges overall. In addition, the survey had a large non-response rate, with the clear possibility that those who had been victimized were more apt to have completed the questionnaire, resulting in an inflated prevalence figure.”
Fox and Moran also point out that the study used an overly broad definition of sexual assault. Respondents were counted as sexual assault victims if they had been subject to “attempted forced kissing” or engaged in intimate encounters while intoxicated.
Defenders of the one-in-five figure will reply that the finding has been replicated by other studies. But these studies suffer from some or all of the same flaws. Campus sexual assault is a serious problem and will not be solved by statistical hijinks.

MYTH 5: Women earn 77 cents for every dollar a man earns—for doing the same work.

FACTS: No matter how many times this wage gap claim is decisively refuted by economists, it always comes back. The bottom line: the 23-cent gender pay gap is simply the difference between the average earnings of all men and women working full-time. It does not account for differences in occupations, positions, education, job tenure or hours worked per week. When such relevant factors are considered, the wage gap narrows to the point of vanishing.

Wage gap activists say women with identical backgrounds and jobs as men still earn less. But they always fail to take into account critical variables. Activist groups like the National Organization for Women have a fallback position: that women’s education and career choices are not truly free—they are driven by powerful sexist stereotypes. [meaning they are not smart enough to make good choices]  In this view, women’s tendency to retreat from the workplace to raise children or to enter fields like early childhood education and psychology, rather than better paying professions like petroleum engineering, is evidence of continued social coercion. Here is the problem: American women are among the best informed and most self-determining human beings in the world. To say that they are manipulated into their life choices by forces beyond their control is divorced from reality and demeaning, to boot.

Conclusion:
Why do these reckless claims have so much appeal and staying power? For one thing, there is a lot of statistical illiteracy among journalists, feminist academics and political leaders. There is also an admirable human tendency to be protective of women—stories of female exploitation are readily believed, and vocal skeptics risk appearing indifferent to women’s suffering. Finally, armies of advocates depend on “killer stats” to galvanize their cause. But killer stats obliterate distinctions between more and less serious problems and send scarce resources in the wrong directions. They also promote bigotry. The idea that American men are annually enslaving more than 100,000 girls, sending millions of women to emergency rooms, sustaining a rape culture and cheating women out of their rightful salary creates rancor in true believers and disdain in those who would otherwise be sympathetic allies.


My advice to women’s advocates: Take back the truth.

Friday, February 13, 2015

The Husband Store

The Husband Store


A store that sells new husbands has opened in Manchester, just off Deansgate where a woman may go to choose a husband. Among the instructions at the entrance is a description of how the store operates:

You may visit this store ONLY ONCE! There are six floors and the value of the products increase as the shopper ascends the flights. The shopper may choose any item from a particular floor, or may choose to go up to the next floor, but you cannot go back down except to exit the building!

So, a woman goes to the Husband Store to find a husband. On the first floor the sign on the door reads:
Floor 1 - These men Have Jobs
She is intrigued, but continues to the second floor, where the sign reads:
Floor 2 - These men Have Jobs and Love  Kids. ‘That’s nice,’ she thinks, ‘but I want more.’

So she continues upward. The third floor sign reads:
Floor 3 - These men Have Jobs, Love Kids, and are Extremely Good Looking.
'Wow,' she thinks, but feels compelled to keep going.

She goes to the fourth floor and the sign reads:
Floor 4 - These men Have Jobs, Love Kids, are Drop-dead Good Looking and Help With Housework…

'Oh, mercy me!' she exclaims, 'I can hardly stand it!' Still, she goes to the fifth floor and the sign reads:
Floor 5 - These men Have Jobs, Love Kids, are Drop-dead Gorgeous, Help with Housework, and Have a Strong Romantic Streak.

She is so tempted to stay, but she goes to the sixth floor, where the sign reads:
Floor  6 - You are visitor 31,456,012 to this floor. There are no men on this floor.. This floor exists solely as proof that women are impossible to please. Thank you for shopping at the Husband Store.

PLEASE NOTE:
To avoid gender bias charges, the store’s owner opened a New Wives store just across the street with the same rules.
The first floor has wives that love sex.
The second floor has wives that love sex and have money and like beer

The third, fourth, fifth and sixth floors have never been visited.

Thursday, October 16, 2014

Hillary Clinton tries to boosts Kentucky Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes

Hillary Clinton tries to boosts Kentucky Democrat Alison Lundergan Grimes



Grimes has been running as "I'm not Obama!"  The problem remains she is part of the Liberal Democrat caucus.  She is foolish enough to think voters won't notice.  She blew that with having Leftist Hillary come into Kentucky to campaign for her.  As conservatives know, one cannot fix stupid and Kentuckians do not need stupid as a Senator!

Monday, October 6, 2014

War on women is based on 1 thing: Abortion rights



War on women is based on 1 thing: Abortion rights

by Kathleen Parker

It has long been accepted by the conventionally wise that the Republican Party is waging a “war on women.”

Let’s be clear. The war on women is based on just one thing – abortion rights. While it is true that access to abortion has been restricted in several states owing to Republican efforts, it is not true that women as a whole care only or mostly about abortion.

I promise, this isn’t another abortion column, not that the horrific number of abortions performed each year shouldn’t make one’s stomach turn. Instead, extremists on the pro-choice left celebrate the “right” to terminate a 20-week-old fetus. Google an image of this stage of fetal development and try to comprehend the glee we witnessed when state Sen. Wendy Davis, now running for governor, became the belle du jour upon her successful filibuster to protect that “right” in Texas.

OK, sorry, so I digressed just a little. But it isn’t possible to dissect the alleged war on women without mentioning abortion, since this is the entire content of the war as defined by savvy Democratic operatives. It was an effective strategy in 2012, aided quite a bit by some of the GOP’s lesser lights and looser tongues, not to mention good ol’ slut-talking Rush Limbaugh.

On the latter’s offense, and the silliness of the so-called war in general, I defer to Bill Maher, who recently chastised liberals for their selective outrage regarding women’s rights.

“We hear a lot about the Republican ‘war on women.’ It’s not cool Rush Limbaugh called somebody a slut. OK,” said Maher. “But Saudi women can’t vote, or drive, or hold a job or leave the house without a man.

Overwhelming majorities in every Muslim country say a wife is always obliged to obey her husband. That all seems like a bigger issue than evangelical Christian bakeries refusing to make gay wedding cakes.”

Indeed.

This selective tendency is also apparent when only certain women are deserving of defense in the public arena. Sarah Palin, whose vice presidency I politely opposed for legitimate reasons that are now widely embraced, has been outrageously abused in the vilest terms – by Maher among others – and left to twist in the wind. Yet Sandra Fluke, whose appeal for insurance coverage of birth control prompted Limbaugh to call her a “slut,” was elevated to martyr status and perhaps a political career.

A more recent example of a wa ron- women event occurred in Virginia’s closely watched congressional race between Democrat John Foust and Republican Barbara Comstock.

This time it was a Democratic male attacking a Republican female in, shall we say, the most clueless terms.

Lacking facts or finesse, Foust mused to an audience that Comstock hadn’t ever held a “real job.”

Meaning, what, that she’s just a mom? Even if this were so, and it is not, why should Foust get a pass for such an ignorant, sexist remark? Is any Democratic male – even one who manages to insult while pandering – better than any Republican female?

In my experience, a woman who can manage a household and juggle the needs of three children while obtaining a law degree from Georgetown University, as Comstock did, can run a corporation or a nation.

Like many working women, Comstock did stay home in the early years to raise her children. She is also whip smart, funny, irreverent and fierce.

Her resume includes such non-cookie baking activities as serving as a senior aide to Rep. Frank Wolf, whose congressional seat she is pursuing.

She currently is serving her third term in the Virginia House of Delegates, where she has advanced legislation to thwart human trafficking and supported several conservative positions related to health care and tax reform.

Yes, she’s conservative. And, yes, she also opposes abortion. Which is to say, she doesn’t quite count in the national movement to elect more women to public office. When a Comstock ad recently called Foust’s comments “sexist, bizarre, insensitive, ignorant,” the 10th district’s Democratic Party tweeted, “If @barbaracomstock were a man, she’d be down 20 pts w women. Her record & policies are horrible for women.”

No, if Comstock were a man, she wouldn’t have to counter such slander.

Virginia voters who oppose Comstock’s legislative record have a clear alternative. But if they cast their ballots for Foust, they’ll be electing a man whose disrespect toward women and the single job only women can do – mothering – is at least as offensive as Limbaugh’s name-calling. On the other hand, maybe Foust and Limbaugh cancel each other out – neutralizing the war that never was.

ShareThis