Hugh Hewitt this morning asked only for first time women callers to call in — he had over 30 women chime in. A truck driver (widow) with 6-children. A couple psychologists as well as a few prosecutors, lawyers, house wives etc. They were all for Kavanaugh, and many said they would be horrified if this happened to their sons. Others had only girls and are in full support of Kavanaugh. Some said they were never interested in politics like they are after a good man had his life destroyed.
Fallout from the Brett Kavanaugh hearings and the now-debunked allegations of sexual assault by Christine Blasey Ford has expanded the divide not only between Republicans and Democrats, but among women — the very group Democrats hoped to motivate for this year’s midterms.
As I’ve covered the hearings and the circus surrounding them, I’ve heard a constant refrain — conservative women are furious about the false allegations leveled against Kavanaugh. They resent the feminist call to believe the woman and thereby assume the man’s guilt simply because he is a member of the male collective.
Feminists have made a mistake assuming that they speak for all women. They don’t.
Many of us are mothers. We have sons whom we love and would defend to our last drop of blood.
We have husbands, fathers, brothers, and male friends we hold in high esteem. Kavanaugh referenced these relationships during his testimony when he pleaded with the committee to consider how they would respond if this happened to a man they loved.
Women across the country applauded, identifying more with Kavanaugh than Ford’s tearless, detached performance laced with inconsistencies, contradictions, and uncorroborated evidence….
“A majority of voters believe that Kavanaugh’s confirmation process was politicized and mishandled, with 69% calling it a ‘national disgrace,’” a poll from the respected Harvard CAPS – Harris group just found.
Voters are surprisingly unified when it comes to one thing: Chastising Feinstein for her role in the debacle.
“75% of voters believe that Senator Diana Feinstein (sic) should have immediately turned over the letter from Christine Ford to the Senate Judiciary committee in July, when she received it,” the Harvard CAPS – Harris poll found.
Even the Leftist rag SLATE has to admit November is looking like a “red wave”:
The accusations of sexual assault against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh are widely perceived to be a boon to Democrats heading into the midterm elections in November. “The women of this country identify with Dr. Ford and will not forget what is happening here,” Neera Tanden, the president of the Center for American Progress, told NBC News over the weekend. “They are not angry, they are furious, and I expect the largest women’s turnout in a midterm—ever.”
In fact, however, the Kavanaugh spectacle seems to have evaporated the Democrats’ enthusiasm edge, according to a poll conducted Monday by NPR, PBS NewsHour, and Marist. In July Democrats were likelier, by 10 percentage points, to say the November elections were “very important.” That gap has now narrowed to a statistical tie. “The result of the hearings, at least in the short run, is the Republican base was awakened,” Marist head Lee Miringoff told NPR.
The change is particularly striking when comparing women in the two parties. Of all the cohorts measured by the poll (including Independent men and women), Democratic women are the only group to display less enthusiasm for the midterms this week than they did in July. Meanwhile, Republican women seem invigorated. In July, 81 percent of Democratic women said the November elections were very important, compared to 71 percent of Republican women. Now, Republican women are 4 percentage points likelier to view the midterms that way (83 percent to 79 percent). That’s a 14-point swing in female voters’ interest in the midterms—after the hearings, and in Republicans’ favor.
The titanic anger of progressive women has been a dominant theme in the media since President Trump’s surprise victory over Hillary Clinton two years ago. Two major books about female rage have been published this fall, including Good and Madby writer and reporter Rebecca Traister. “This political moment has provoked a period in which more and more women have been in no mood to dress their fury up as anything other than raw and burning rage,” Traister wrote in the New York Times on Saturday. “Many women are yelling, shouting, using Sharpies to etch sharply worded slogans onto protest signs, making furious phone calls to representatives.”
But women’s rage is not a chorus performed in unison. Atlantic reporter Emma Green talked with about a dozen female conservative leaders across the country for a story this week that puts flesh on the Marist poll’s finding: that the Kavanaugh hearings have electrified conservative women too. “I’ve got women in my church who were not politically active at all who were incensed with this,” the chairwoman of the West Virginia Republican Party told Green. The Indiana state director for the anti-abortion Susan B. Anthony List, Jodi Smith, told Green that “people in Indiana are angry.” In her view, the hearings are “one of the best things that could happen to us” as she looks forward to a hotly contested Senate election in the state in November.
The Marist poll is just one poll. And conservative women plugged into state and local politics were already very likely to vote (and vote Republican) before the Senate hearings. Their new outrage over Kavanaugh’s supposed mistreatment won’t make their votes count more. But their reactions may indicate that less-engaged Republican women are feeling similarly outraged, or even just ambivalent, about the Kavanaugh accusations.
The Kavanaugh hearings have riveted the country in a way that few news stories have the power to do. Almost 20 percent of American households watched portions of the testimony last week; that figure does not include people who streamed the hearings online or listened on the radio. In my own anecdotal observation, my evangelical-heavy Facebook feed has been taken over by posts about accuser Christine Blasey Ford’s credibility, often written by women, including those who rarely post about politics. “There is total manipulation of this process—it’s disgusting,” one woman wrote on an evangelical friend’s post that proposed it was impossible to know who was lying. “I believe she was assaulted [but] I simply refuse to believe it was him.” Others argue that Ford’s evidence is too thin, that Kavanaugh’s good name has been permanently smeared, that his family is suffering unjustly.…
In the space of three weeks, Democratic fortunes have turned in a shocking way. Just three weeks ago, on September 13, Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) came forward with an allegation of sexual abuse against Brett Kavanaugh; just three days later, Christine Blasey Ford herself came forward in an interview with The Washington Post. At that time, Kavanaugh’s nomination fell into severe jeopardy. Democrats held an eight-point lead on the generic Congressional ballot according to the RealClearPolitics poll average. According to the latest Economist, Marist, and IBD polls, those numbers are now below six points. IBD has the race inside the margin of error; Rasmussen does as well. The enthusiasm gap for Democrats has essentially disappeared.
So, what happened?
Democrats woke the sleeping giant.
In 2016, Republicans showed up to vote because they were afraid of Hillary Clinton. But that concern pales next to the concern Republicans now have about the possibility of Democratic governance. Republicans have been treated to a front-row seat in a display of Democratic willingness to do anything to damage conservatives. Anything.
Republicans have known about lack of Democratic decency since at least 2012, when Mitt Romney was characterized as a potential slaver by Joe Biden and an emotionless, cruel sexist by many in the media. It’s one of the reasons so many Republicans voted for Donald Trump, a blunt instrument unwilling to back down in the face of threats, to face off against Hillary Clinton.
But Kavanaugh was one step further. Kavanaugh wasn’t up for election — he was a career judge, on one of the most prestigious circuits in America. He was a political moderate, with the support of many of his liberal colleagues. He was establishment. What’s more, he was a devout Catholic and a father of two.
And Democrats decided to ruin his life. Feinstein decided to hold back Ford’s allegations until the last minute, then drop them. Democrats decided to play up every weak, uncorroborated allegation, no matter how disgusting; they decided to promote the insane speculation of professional publicity whore Michael Avenatti. The media decided to endorse the idea that Kavanaugh, a respected federal public servant, was actually a secret gambler, alcoholic, ice-thrower, and gang rapist, throwing out their basic standards of journalism in the process.
And Republicans watched. So did independents.
What they saw scared the bejeezus out of them: a militant Left willing to ruin a man’s life based on unverifiable and uncorroborated allegations, for purely partisan purposes. And those Americans began to think: would the Democrats do that to me?…
In an almost “reality is better than fiction” moment, feminists in the West are outraged (emotional) that the idea of women being more emotional is even considered with a grain of salt. Dennis Prager uses some recent articles/stories to show the outrage from the Left to the ideas of difference and their attempt to make totalitarianism (total thought) the norm. I liken it to people saying “Islam is a violent religion,” and Muslims being soo offended that they murder people to prove it isn’t. I thank GOD my wife is more emotional that I with my kids… I would HATE for “two me’s” to raise them.
Dennis Prager discusses an article (see USA TODAY) that discusses some well known French actresses rejecting the #MeToo movement as going too far in it’s war against men. Discussed as well is feminism’s deleterious affect on femininity — with a clip from Curb Your Enthusiasm that Dennis enjoyed.
“Men can get periods too!” claims HuffPost. Their viral article has sparked outrage and controversy across the inter-webs. But we shan’t jump to conclusion! Join us as we investigate their claim and all its implications.
During an interview with NPR’s Lulu Garcia-Navarro on June 25th, 2017, tennis great John McEnroe said that tennis great Serena Williams would rank about “700 in the world” if she played against men. The outcry on social media and in the press was swift, harsh, and omnipresent. But was it deserved? Christina Hoff Sommers, AEI Resident Scholar and Factual Feminist, serves up her analysis. (McEnroe’s comments)
What do you get when you cross sports with hyper-genderism? You get the usual outrage machine train wreck of course. Like when tennis great John McEnroe said that if Serena Williams played in men’s professional tennis she’d rank around 700th. The media erupted as if to say, “You cannot be serious!” Yes, he can—as even Williams herself agreed. (POWERLINE)
BTW, as a man, I think of “Barbarella” when I hear “feminist science.” Why do I say that? To note my natural side as a man [Romans 7:14-24] AS WELL AS TO cause deep despair in any feminist who happens along this blog-post.
There were a lot of feminist scientists in “Blame it on Rio” as well — cue smiley wink.
Feminists now claim the biggest problem with science today is that there are too many white straight males. Bill Whittle, Stephen Green, and Scott Ott tackle this outrageous claim.
Yesterday’s show and his column today via Dennis Prager, deals with CNN reporter, Jill Filipovic, writing about Australian Sen. Larissa Waters. Miss. Waters does not cover her breast while the baby eats… a polite manner/habit when breastfeeding in public. The part I was especially interested in was the portion quoting evolutionary psychologist Carol Jahme, a science columnist for the left-wing pro-feminist publication the Guardian….
….Because in virtually every society, heterosexual men have found the female breast a particularly sexually alluring part of a woman’s body.
Evolutionary psychologist Carol Jahme, a science columnist for the left-wing pro-feminist publication the Guardian, summarized a whole host of academic studies. She wrote: “The full, plump bosom seen in the human ape is an anomaly. No other primate has a permanent breast. … The sex appeal of rounded female buttocks and plump breasts is both universal and unique to the human primate.”
So, then, the sole purpose of women’s breasts is not for nursing babies. It is also to attract and arouse men.
Yet, whoever argues that women’s breasts are there to arouse men, not just to provide a baby with milk, is dismissed by feminists as a sexist heterosexist patriarchal pig, a product of a sexist culture that renders women and their baby-feeding mammary glands sexual objects.
But it turns out that science, not just common sense, rejects the feminist argument.
So, how does a CNN columnist, along with myriad other feminists, not know this? Why did my grandmother, who never went to high school, know this, while a vast number of graduates of our universities do not?
The answer is that today’s universities — especially women’s studies and gender studies departments — generally make people stupid.
The only remaining question is: Did anyone at CNN find this column absurd? I suspect not….
Keep in mind, I do not believe in naturalistic evolution, but this is an argument you would adopt to show the detractor that even their side argues against them.
ALEXIS DE TOCQUEVILLE wrote of the United States, “I have nowhere seen woman occupying a loftier position.” More than 170 years later, his observations remain applicable. Opportunities open to all women in America are unknown to most women outside Western civilization.
A more jaundiced view of the status of women emanates from domestic feminists. Angry Andrea Dworkin labels Western women “the ultimate house-niggers, ass-licking, bowing, scraping, shuffling fools.” Women’s “minds are aborted in their development by sexist education,” the feminist academic writes. “[O]ur bodies are violated by oppressive grooming imperatives,” the disheveled Dworkin complains, and “the police function against us in cases of rape and assault.” Her rant continues, “the media, schools, and churches conspire to deny us dignity and freedom… the nuclear family and ritualized sexual behavior imprison us in roles… which are degrading to us.”
One would be hard-pressed to find many feminists willing to defend Tocqueville’s perspective. It would not be very difficult to find large numbers of feminists, both inside and outside the academy, who agree with the substance of Dworkin’s tirade. This speaks volumes about contemporary feminists. Feminist theory posits that an ambiguous force known as “patriarchy” keeps women down. With key components (e.g., religion, family, and capitalism) of the patriarchy warmly encouraged by American culture, feminists vent special ire toward the United States. Ironically, the country that feminists denounce in the harshest of terms stands as the greatest ally in equality of opportunity for women.
It is telling that the feminists most vociferously decrying America as the dreaded “patriarchy” are notoriously prone to overstatement and issuing baseless claims. In her book Who Stole Feminism?, Christina Hoff Sommers documents such dishonesty among women’s issues activists. For example; several years ago the presidents of the National Organization for Women and the National Women’s Studies Association declared domestic violence the leading cause of birth defects. Media outlets such as Time, the Chicago Tribune, and the Arizona Republic repeated the claim, citing a nonexistent March of Dimes report as evidence. Like the March of Dimes study, the idea that domestic violence causes a large proportion of birth defects is a feminist-generated hoax. Another widely believed fraud posits that a national anorexia epidemic kills tens of thousands of young women annually. If these figures on anorexia put forward by the likes of Gloria Steinem and Naomi Wolf were true, one might quite logically conclude that our culture inflicts tremendous harm on young women. But the figures promiscuously bandied about have little relation to the truth. In reality, the approximate number of deaths per year from anorexia in the United States is a more modest but still tragic 100. Accuracy, one concludes, is not a strong suit of feminists.
Some feminists are actually quite honest about their dishonesty. Feminist scholar Kelly Oliver writes, “in order to be revolutionary, feminist theory cannot claim to describe what exists, or, `natural facts.’ Rather, feminist theories should be political tools, strategies for overcoming oppression in specific concrete situations. The goal, then, of feminist theory, should be to develop strategic theories—not true theories, not false theories, but strategic theories.” Other feminists avouch that all truth is socially constructed. Feminists deride the conventional tools used to arrive at truth, such as logic, reasoning, and science. Thinking About Women, a leading women’s studies textbook, imparts, “despite the strong claims of neutrality and objectivity by scientists, the fact is that science is closely tied to the centers of power in this society and interwoven with capitalist and patriarchal institutions.” When we come to grips with the fact that for feminists “strategic” interests trump ridiculed concepts such as science and truth, we are better equipped to understand the rationale for feminism’s wild claims, particularly its closely guarded tenet that the patriarchy governs our affairs in the West.
If women in the United States live under “patriarchy,” what term could accurately describe the situation faced by women in other parts of the world?
Are the problems that preoccupy American feminists—the lack of taxpayer-funded abortions, low self-esteem for schoolgirls, an unequal number of sports teams for women—in any way comparable to something like clitorectomy, a culturally ingrained practice that has mutilated the genitals of more than 100 million living African women? Is the patriarchy that forces women to abort their unborn children in China the same “patriarchy” that “oppresses” women in America? What is there to compare between the status of women in the West and the status of women in the Arab world? Is it honest to use the term “patriarchy” to describe both the Western form of marriage, where women are free to choose their husbands, and arranged marriages in India, which sometimes lead to the bride’s death because her family provided an “insufficient” dowry?
“Patriarchy,” a term that adequately describes societies in many parts of the world, loses its currency when applied to the West. The effect of mislabeling America a “patriarchy” is as likely to endear people to the patriarchy as it is to repel them from America. The feminists abuse language by freely hurling about terms without regard for their meanings.
Think of any major problem affecting our society. Chances are, that problem disproportionately affects males. Males are both the victims of most crimes and their perpetrators. The population behind bars is an, overwhelmingly male population. Almost 19 out of every 20 prisoners are men. Homelessness is predominantly a male problem. Men constitute 70% of the adult homeless population. Men abuse alcohol and other drugs in far greater numbers than women. The suicide rate for men is more than four times greater than the rate for women. More males lack health insurance than females.
Girls get better grades, are more likely to be enrolled in advanced placement courses, and are involved to a greater extent in all major extracurricular activities save sports. Boys, on the other hand, are suspended from school more, are three times more likely to be enrolled in special education, and constitute the vast majority of high school dropouts. Knowing this, should we be taken aback when we learn that the majority of students who have enrolled in college for each of the past 24 years have been women?
Women in the United States tend to live nearly seven years longer than their male counterparts. Cancer, heart disease, and the remaining 15 leading causes of death all victimize men in greater numbers than women. In the United States, AIDS is an overwhelmingly male disease. Men make up 54% of the workforce yet fall victim to 92% of all deaths in the workplace.
Of course, there are many areas where women generally find themselves on less than equal ground with men. To name just two: The average woman earns less money than the average man, and women occupy fewer political offices than men. Just as no institutional force compels men to commit crimes or abuse drugs, no governmental or societal force keeps women from seeking greater wealth or political power. Unlike in other nations, economic and political opportunities are completely open to women here.
Women in the West lead better lives than women in the Third World. More important, according to numerous statistical indicators, American women are healthier, better educated, and less susceptible to various cultural pathologies than are American men.
If American men conspire to oppress women, as theories of “patriarchy” assert, they are not doing a particularly effective job of carrying out their plot.
Since this is a large post, I would suggest picking a topic or section and going through it… and then coming back to cover another section. We are often busy and so must manage time wisely. The reason for this post was a short paragraph written by an awesome gal who quickly explained her positions of why she (and other women) marched in the Women’s March that recently took place the day after the election. I took her small paragraph and bullet pointed a few issues I wish to address, and these can be seen in numbers one through four – below right. They are easily jumped to by clicking on the number. I will respond with media, quotes, and commentary in a way that steps beyond the mantras of the professional Left.
I would suggest combining this post with an earlier post of mine to understand just how much culture and the media can misrepresent things during an election season.
Kellyanne Conway’s “alternative facts” statement was loudly rejected. However, if such importance is placed on false facts… then this should help the student of truth to wade through the “alternative facts” apparently infuriating women of the Left.
The mottos of our country are: E Pluribus Unum, In God We Trust, and Liberty. The motto of our Revolution was basically: “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” While the Constitution requires those who stand before the law to be treated equally (equal under the law)… “equality” is not part of liberty. You can have either liberty or either equality – but not both. You will see this fleshed out in number three, bellow., but a good example of this in history is the French Revolution. It had a motto: “Liberty, Equality, Fraternity.” This was an experiment done around the same time as the American Revolution and it collapsed on itself. Here is a good recap of these foundation philosophies:
Let’s take the idea of equality. For the Americans, it was largely a matter of equality before the law. When Jefferson wrote in the Declaration, “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness,” he meant that human beings were equal in their possession of legal rights. He did not mean that all people were equal in talent, merit, wealth, or social status. Rather, they were equal, as human beings, in their right to pursue their interests and their dreams without interference by the government or other people.
Writing in the Federalist Papers No. 10, James Madison made it clear that he had no use for the French idea of absolute equality. He wrote, “Theoretic politicians have erroneously supposed that by reducing mankind to a perfect equality in their political rights, they would at the same time be perfectly equalized and assimilated in their possessions, their opinions, and their passions.” For Madison, there was no single or general will in mankind. Rather, there was only a society of individuals with diverse interests and opinions whose natural freedoms needed to be preserved by government.
The French idea of equality, or égalité, is one of the three national mottos of the French Republic, but it is derived from a certain view of freedom. Since freedom is collective—an expression of the general will—and it is not individually determined, then naturally its truest expression is equality of the masses. You can be truly free only if you are in sync with the general will.
But that implies that everyone’s will must be equal; otherwise, what’s the use of it being general? If everyone was allowed to have different interests, statuses, opinions, they would not be united in a single will, would they? As Saint-Just put it during the height of the Reign of Terror, “Private happiness and interest are a violence against the social order. You must forget yourselves…. [T]he only salvation is through the public good.”
The “public good” is just another word for collective freedom, which leads us to the third motto of the Revolution, fraternité, or the appeal to national unity. The first celebration of the storming of the Bastille, called the Féte de la Fédération and held on the Champ-de-Mars in 1790, was not a Victor Hugo–like celebration of Les Misérables, but a mass rally celebrating the fraternité of the Revolution and the unity of the French nation. It was the French ideas of liberty and equality all wrapped up in one. Free citizens would come together as equal partners in the unified French nation.
But there was, in the French Revolution, a paradox in this passion for unity. All nations celebrate national unity, even our own, but it can be taken to extremes. The fraternal desire for consensus and accord ended up in violence and discord.
Hearing the guilty verdict at his trial during the Terror, a member of the Girondin party joked that the only way for him and his compatriots to save their skins was to proclaim “the unity of their lives and the indivisibility of their heads.” Exactly! Pushing for agreement to the extreme of violence is the most divisive—and exclusionary—thing you can possibly do.
In the history of ideas and political movements, the legacy of fraternité is twofold: One, it gave birth to the populist nationalisms that would roil Europe and the world for the next two centuries, and two, taken to extremes, it led to the rise of totalitarian democracy in the 20th century.
All these differences in interpreting freedom, equality, and unity led the Americans and the French to very different notions of government.
The modern Left and the French of centuries past have a similar view of equality. It is an illiberal view of nature. To create equality IN THIS SENSE (guaranteed equal outcomes) is an impossible task. I will give you a couple examples of what I mean. The first deals with “special rights” in the attempt to create the [illusion] of choice. In an oft used example of mine I note that by defining when life begins at a later stage of a humans life-span, we see gender abortions (typically a girl is aborted due to cultural preferences for males), but here is a hypothetical of a newly forming protected class:
“If homosexuality is really genetic, we may soon be able to tell if a fetus is predisposed to homosexuality, in which case many parents might choose to abort it. Will gay rights activists continue to support abortion rights if this occurs?”
Dale A. Berryhill, The Liberal Contradiction: How Contemporary Liberalism Violates Its Own Principles and Endangers Its Own Goals (Lafayette, LA: Vital Issues Press, 1994), 172.
Mmmm, do you see an issue here? Under the “health of the mother” as the courts interpret Doe v. Bolton, ensuring a gender outcome or wanting a straight child would be allowed since “stress” or maladies like the baby having a cleft palate, or the mother is struggling financially, or one wished to pursue a career — are grounds for aborting children. Legally. Heck, if financial worries is reason enough… what’s left? Another example of the impossibility of reaching the equality spoken of here is those who felt marginalized BECAUSE of the march. Here are a couple examples:
… In fact, though conventional wisdom would suggest that progressives everywhere were pleased with the demonstration, it turns out some transgender people thought the prevalence of “pussy hats,” vagina costumes and paintings of female genitalia were “oppressive” toward their community.
“[P]ussy hats set the tone for a march that would focus acutely on genitalia at the expense of the transgender community,” Mic . com staff writer Marie Solis reported. “Signs like ‘Pussy power,’ ‘Viva la Vulva’ and ‘Pussy grabs back’ all sent a clear and oppressive message to trans women, especially: having a vagina is essential to womanhood.”…
Transgender activists are upset that the women‘s march over the weekend was not inclusive to biological men who identify as women, as the protest presented an oppressive message that having a vagina is essential to womanhood.
Saturday’s event to oppose the inauguration of Donald Trump was largely a “white cis women march,“ with too many pictures of female reproductive organs and pink hats, according to trans women and nonbinary individuals
The women‘s march had an over-reliance on slogans and posters depicting gender norms, like using pink to represent women and girls, said some transgender activists who boycotted the march.
Sorry, trannies, but until you can have abortions, the feminist movement isn’t that interested in you.
So just by having an inclusive march many were excluded. This is the trouble with the Left’s egalitarianism. It cannot work and merely creates more division and eventual cannibalism, as Christian Hoff Sommers notes:
FIRST and FOREMOST… when categories are compared properly, we see women tend to make more than men…
Among college-educated, never-married individuals with no children who worked fill-time and were from 40 to 64 years old— that is, beyond the child-bearing years— men averaged $40,000 a year in income, while women averaged $47,000.30 But, despite the fact that women in this category earned more than men in the same category, gross income differences in favor of men continue to reflect differences in work patterns between the sexes, so that women and men are not in the same categories to the same extent.
Even women who have graduated from top-level universities like Harvard and Yale have not worked full-time, or worked at all, to the same extent that male graduates of these same institutions have. Among Yale alumni in their forties, “only 56 percent of the women still worked, compared with 90 percent of the men,” according to the New York Times. It was much the same story at Harvard:
A 2001 survey of Harvard Business School graduates found that 31 percent of the women from the classes of 1981, 1985 and 1991 who answered the survey worked only part time or on contract, and another 31 percent did not work at all, levels strikingly similar to the percentages of the Yale students interviewed who predicted they would stay at home or work part time in their 30’s and 40’s.
Thomas Sowell, Economic Facts and Fallacies (New York, NY: Basic Books, 2008), 70.
What typically happen with women around age thirty? The word rhymes with manly.
…The Department of Labor’s Time Use survey shows that full-time working women spend an average of 8.01 hours per day on the job, compared to 8.75 hours for full-time working men. One would expect that someone who works 9% more would also earn more. This one fact alone accounts for more than a third of the wage gap.
Choice of occupation also plays an important role in earnings. While feminists suggest that women are coerced into lower-paying job sectors, most women know that something else is often at work. Women gravitate toward jobs with fewer risks, more comfortable conditions, regular hours, more personal fulfillment and greater flexibility. Simply put, many women—not all, but enough to have a big impact on the statistics—are willing to trade higher pay for other desirable job characteristics.
Men, by contrast, often take on jobs that involve physical labor, outdoor work, overnight shifts and dangerous conditions (which is also why men suffer the overwhelming majority of injuries and deaths at the workplace). They put up with these unpleasant factors so that they can earn more.
Recent studies have shown that the wage gap shrinks—or even reverses—when relevant factors are taken into account and comparisons are made between men and women in similar circumstances. In a 2010 study of single, childless urban workers between the ages of 22 and 30, the research firm Reach Advisors found that women earned an average of 8% more than their male counterparts. Given that women are outpacing men in educational attainment, and that our economy is increasingly geared toward knowledge-based jobs, it makes sense that women’s earnings are going up compared to men’s….
Another reason there is a broad variance in pay are for a few reasons. Women tend to choose different career paths than men (choice), and also take time out to care for children (nature).
…various countries’ economies, there are still particular industries today where considerable physical strength remains a requirement. Women are obviously not as likely to work in such fields as men are— and some of these are fields with jobs that pay more than the national average. While women have been 74 percent of what the U.S. Census Bureau classifies as “clerical and kindred workers,” they have been less than 5 percent of “transport equipment operatives.” In other words, women are far more likely to be sitting behind a desk than to be sitting behind the steering wheel of an eighteen-wheel truck. Women are also less than 4 percent of the workers in “construction, extraction, and maintenance.” They are less than 3 percent of construction workers or loggers, less than 2 percent of roofers or masons and less than one percent of the mechanics and technicians who service heavy vehicles arid mobile equipment.
Such occupational distributions have obvious economic implications, since miners earn nearly double the income of office clerks when both work full-time and year-round 20 There is still a premium paid for workers doing heavy physical work, as well as for hazardous work, which often overlaps work requiring physical strength. While men are 54 percent of the labor force, they are 92 percent of the job-related deaths.
Thomas Sowell, Economic Facts and Fallacies (New York, NY: Basic Books, 2008), 64-65.
The first thing to say is the Higher Court settled this — I says settled with “air quotes.” However, many fine gay men and women I know would reject this decision either because they think marriage between heterosexuals has benefits for society same-sex marriages cannot offer. And/or they support the idea in the Constitution that what isn’t clearly enumerated in the Constitution for the Federal Government to concern itself with, then these decisions should be left to the states.
In our sometimes misguided efforts to expand our freedom, selfish adults have systematically dismantled that which is most precious to children as they grow and develop. That’s why I am now speaking out against same-sex marriage.
By the way, I am gay.
A few days ago I testified against pending same-sex marriage legislation in Minnesota’s Senate Judiciary and House Civil Law Committees.
The atmosphere at these events (I’ve also testified elsewhere) seems tinged with unreality—almost a carnival-like surrealism. Natural law, tradition, religion, intellectual curiosity, and free inquiry no longer play a role in deliberations. Same-sex marriage legislation is defended solely on grounds of moral relativism and emotions.
Pure sophistry is pitted against reason. Reason is losing.
Same-sex marriage will do the same, depriving children of their right to either a mom or a dad. This is not a small deal. Children are being reduced to chattel-like sources of fulfillment. On one side, their family tree consists not of ancestors, but of a small army of anonymous surrogates, donors, and attorneys who pinch-hit for the absent gender in genderless marriages. Gays and lesbians demand that they have a “right” to have children to complete their sense of personal fulfillment, and in so doing, are trumping the right that children have to both a mother and a father—a right that same-sex marriage tramples over.
Same-sex marriage will undefine marriage and unravel it, and in so doing, it will undefine children. It will ultimately lead to undefining humanity. This is neither “progressive” nor “conservative” legislation. It is “regressive” legislation.
Another examples comes from respected Canadian sociologist/scholar/homosexual, Paul Nathanson, writes that there are at least five functions that marriage serves–things that every culture must do in order to survive and thrive. They are:
Foster the bonding between men and women
Foster the birth and rearing of children
Foster the bonding between men and children
Foster some form of healthy masculine identity
Foster the transformation of adolescents into sexually responsible adults
Note that Nathanson considers these points critical to the continued survival of any culture. He continues “Because heterosexuality is directly related to both reproduction and survival,… every human societ[y] has had to promote it actively…. Heterosexuality is always fostered by a cultural norm” that limits marriage to unions of men and women. He adds that people “are wrong in assuming that any society can do without it.” Going further he stated that “same sex marriage is a bad idea”… [he] only opposed “gay marriage, not gay relationships.”
Some persons think being gay is immutable, and so apply the 14th Amendment to the issue. However, this is not the case. Homosexuality is often times due to trauma early in the person’s life. Or sexual activity at a young age:
So, for instance, my mom knew quite a few lesbians throughout her life as a hippie/druggy, who now loves Jesus. In her mobile-home park living experience she has become friends, acquaintances with and met quite a few lesbians over the years. She told me that most had been abused by some older man (often a family member) when they were young. Also, the men I have known well-enough to intimate to me their early lives also have corroborated such encounters (one was a family member, the other not). Which brings me to a quote by a lesbian author I love:
“Here come the elephant again: Almost without exception, the gay men I know (and that’s too many to count) have a story of some kind of sexual trauma or abuse in their childhood — molestation by a parent or an authority figure, or seduction as an adolescent at the hands of an adult. The gay community must face the truth and see sexual molestation of an adolescent for the abuse it is,* instead of the ‘coming-of-age’ experience many [gays] regard it as being. Until then, the Gay Elite will continue to promote a culture of alcohol and drug abuse, sexual promiscuity, and suicide by AIDS”
Tammy Bruce, The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left’s Assault on Our Culture and Values (Roseville, CA: Prima Publishers, 2003), 99.
*By the age of 18 or 19 years, three quarters of American youth, regardless of their sexual orientation, have had sexual relations with another person. Gay males are more likely than heterosexual males to become sexually active at a younger age (12.7 vs. 15.7 years) and to have had multiple sexual partners. The ages at the time of the first sexual experience with another person are closer for lesbians and heterosexual females (15.4 vs. 16.2 years).
You see, much like Walt Heyer, a man who had a sex operation, lived as a woman for 8-years, and then one day started to confront the “demons” from his childhood. He started to deal with these earlier issues in his life after taking some courses to get a degree in counseling at U.C. Irvine — he realized his gender dysphoria was because of trauma at a young age (HERE). To put a stamp of approval via society on a “choice” that is caused by anothers “choice” in making these relationships equal, is doing more harm to the individual than good (as Walt Heyer also points out in his book, mentioned in the link). Many have changed their sexual orientation from gay to hetero… but if this is the case, then one’s fluid sexuality is very UNLIKE ethnic origins (an ex-gay tells his story; a man raised by lesbians and who’s own early sexuality was in flux tells his story).
Here we find the indomitable Camille Paglia, a lesbian scholar, noting some of the above:
More than twenty years ago, the influential lesbian author Camille Paglia had this to say about the “born gay” myth: “Homosexuality is not normal. On the contrary it is a challenge to the norm…. Nature exists whether academics like it or not. And in nature, procreation is the single relentless rule. That is the norm…. Our sexual bodies were designed for reproduction…. No one is born gay. The idea is ridiculous… homosexuality is an adaptation, not an inborn trait.”
But she was just getting started as she asked:
“Is the gay identity so fragile that it cannot bear the thought that some people may not wish to be gay? Sexuality is highly fluid, and reversals are theoretically possible. However, habit is refractory, once sensory pathways have been blazed and deepened by repetition—a phenomenon obvious with obesity, smoking, alcoholism or drug addiction—helping gays to learn how to function heterosexually, if they wish is a perfectly worthy aim. We should be honest enough to consider whether or not homosexuality may not indeed, be a pausing at the prepubescent stage where children band together by gender…. Current gay cant insists that homosexuality is not a choice; that no one would choose to be gay in a homophobic society. But there is an element of choice in all behavior, sexual or otherwise. It takes an effort to deal with the opposite sex; it is safer with your own kind. The issue is one of challenge versus comfort.”
Michael L. Brown, Outlasting the Gay Revolution: Where Homosexual Activism Is Really Going and How to Turn the Tide (Washington, DC: WND Books, 2015), 162.
IN CASE you are not tracking… one cannot change his or her ethnicity/color.
Equality – LGBT [Must] Be Accepted By Everyone
Here is the actual quote from the paragraph mentioned at the top of the post:
“LGBT WOULD have just the same rights to be married, get a job, be accepted by EVERYONE”
In order to impose some essence of equality, the government has to homogenize ALL interactions. In doing so, and getting to the “accepted by everyone” level, you would have to have something more that what Orwell wrote of in 1984. This is in actuality impossible, and is a sign of the Utopian goals of the Left.
For thousands of years human beings have dreamt of perfect worlds, worlds free of conflict, hunger and unhappiness. But can these worlds ever exist in reality? In 1516 Sir Thomas More wrote the first ‘Utopia’. He coined the word ‘utopia’ from the Greek ou-topos meaning ‘no place’ or ‘nowhere’. But this was a pun – the almost identical Greek word eu-topos means a good place. So at the very heart of the word is a vital question: can a perfect world ever be realised?
All societies and movements that have attempted this have failed, miserably. This is no different. It curbs the freedom of contract between two individuals for a product or a service. Same-sex marriage as pushed by liberals is in direct conflict to enumerated protections in the Constitution. In Massachusetts, and now it is happening in Illinois. The oldest (in the nation), most successful foster and adoption care organization has closed its doors because they would be forced to adopt to same-sex couples. Lets peer into who this would affect:
“Everyone’s still reeling from the decision,” Marylou Sudders, executive director of the Massachusetts Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (MSPCC), said yesterday. “Ultimately, the only losers are the kids,” said Maureen Flatley, a Boston adoption consultant and lobbyist. (more on RPT & WT)
And business are bankrupted by government to impose these unreachable norms.
Again, this is not a straight versus gay category. This is a Left/Right issue in our body politic. For example, here is a Christian, conservative, apologist — Frank Turek — making a point:
“….Imagine a homosexual videographer being forced to video a speech that a conservative makes against homosexual behavior and same sex marriage. Should that homosexual videographer be forced to do so? Of course not! Then why Elane Photography?….”
Now, here is a “conservatarian” blogger, Gay Patriot’s, input:
“…it’s a bad law, a law that violates natural human rights to freedom of association and to freely-chosen work. It is not good for gays; picture a gay photographer being required by law to serve the wedding of some social conservative whom he or she despises.”
AGAIN, there are many gay men and women that GET IT:
GAY PATRIOT shot me over to The Blaze’s article on this… good stuff, and I LOVE these two ladies.
[Kathy Trautvetter and Diane DiGeloromo, a lesbian couple who own and operate BMP T-shirts, a New Jersey-based printing company, sat down with Glenn Beck Thursday night to explain why they are standing up for an embattled Christian printer who refused to make shirts for a gay pride festival.]
The lesbian couple are standing up for Christian t-shirt maker Blaine Adamson, who refused to print shirts for a gay pride festival because it compromised his values. Adamson has come under attack for his stance, but this couple supports him. The story is a microcosm for what should be happening in America as we navigate the way the world is changing.
“As a business owner, it struck a chord with me when I read the story, because I know how hard it is to build a business. You put your blood and your sweat and your tears into every bit of it. When I put myself in his place, I immediately felt like if that were to happen to us, I couldn’t create or print anti-gay T-shirts, you know, for a group. I couldn’t do it,” Kathy explained.
Diane added, “We feel this really isn’t a gay or straight issue. This is a human issue. No one really should be forced to do something against what they believe in. It’s as simple as that, and we feel likewise. If we were approached by an organization such as the Westboro Baptist Church, I highly doubt we would be doing business with them.”“Everybody votes with their dollars, you know?” Kathy said. “And why you would want to go with somebody who doesn’t agree with you, [when] there’s others who do agree with you, that’s who I want to do business with.”
Nice. If only all gay people were so tolerant and open-minded.
Love is Love
A story via GAY PATRIOT and his very humorous way to bring to light the deeper issue at hand, we find another example of the deteriorating acidic colloquialisms of the Left falling apart at the expense of civil society:
However, here is GAY PATRIOT noting what is really going on:
“Don’t be ridiculous,” they said. “No way does same sex marriage lead to legalized polygamy. The slippery slope argument is a complete fallacy, because enactment of one liberal social policy has never, ever led to the subsequent enactment of the logical extension of that liberal social policy. Ever!”
Well, they may have been wrong about the coefficient of friction on that particular incline. Commenter Richard Bell notes the following: Judge Cites Same-Sex Marriage in Declaring Polygamy Ban Unconstitutional.
Since marriage is no longer about creating a stable environment for children, and has become (and this mainly the fault of heterosexual liberals) about personal fulfillment, validation, and access to social benefits, there literally is no constraint on how much more broadly it can be redefined.
There have been quite a few admissions like this, but here is one example by a wel known LGBT activist cataloged by THE BLAZE:
A 2012 speech by Masha Gessen, an author and outspoken activist for the LGBT community, is just now going viral and it includes a theory that many supporters of traditional marriage have speculated about for years: The push for gay marriage has less to do with the right to marry – it is about diminishing and eventually destroying the institution of marriage and redefining the “traditional family.”
The subject of gay marriage stirs powerful reactions on both sides of the argument. There are those who argue that legalizing it would diminish traditional marriage. And those advocating for gay marriage have long stated that the issue will not harm traditional marriage. Ms. Gessen’s comments on the subject seem to contradict the pro-gay-marriage party lines.
Gessen shared her views on the subject and very specifically stated;
“Gay marriage is a lie.”
“Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there.”
“It’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist.” (This statement is met with very loud applause.)
As mentioned above, Gessen also talked about redefining the traditional family. This may have something to do with the fact that she has “three children with five parents”:
“I don’t see why they (her children) shouldn’t have five parents legally. I don’t see why we should choose two of those parents and make them a sanctioned couple.”…
Here again we run into the issue of EQUALITY as the Left views it. Not an equality in the sight of the law but an equality in outcomes. This is actually REALLY easy to show as wrong. But the 100% thingy made me chuckle. It reminded me of this call into the Larry Elder show:
Too Funny! But this is the thinking of these egalitarian tyrants. Take note that I will deal with the SHOOTING OF BLACK MEN first, then deal with Traffic stops. Remember, studies show police officers are MORE likely to shoot a white criminal than a black (cue shocked faces): Shootings
A study by a Harvard professor released this month found no evidence of racial bias in police shootings even though officers were more likely to interact physically with non-whites than whites.
The paper for the National Bureau of Economic Research, which examined thousands of incidents at 10 large police departments in California, Florida and Texas, concluded that police were no more likely to shoot non-whites than whites after factoring in extenuating circumstances.
“On the most extreme use of force — officer-involved shootings — we find no racial differences in either the raw data or when contextual factors are taken into account,” said Harvard economics professor Roland G. Fryer Jr. in the abstract of the July 2016 paper.
Mr. Fryer, who is black, told The New York Times that the finding of no racial discrimination in police shootings was “the most surprising result of my career.”
At the same time, the study found blacks and Hispanics were more than 50 percent more likely to experience physical interactions with police, including touching, pushing, handcuffing, drawing a weapon, and using a baton or pepper spray.
The 63-page study, “An Empirical Analysis of Racial Differences in Police Use of Force,” appears to support research conducted at Washington State University showing that officers in simulation tests were actually less likely to shoot at blacks than whites.
The paper also challenges the contention by the new wave of civil-rights groups such as Black Lives Matter that racist police are singling out blacks for shootings….
Listen, these next two media pieces are a bit long, but you get to hear real-world statistics. The first pice of media is from Larry Elder via my YouTube channel. The video following Elder is a Bill Whittle production… good stuff for the serious student of truth:
Where to start with actor Jesse Williams’ widely praised rant on police brutality and white racism delivered at this year’s Black Entertainment Television awards show?
To his enthusiastic audience, Williams reeled off lie after lie, all in the name of black “resistance” over the “oppressor” – meaning anyone he believes benefits from “this invention called whiteness.” Time magazine called his discourse “powerful.”
Where are fact-checkers when the fact-devoid desperately need fact-checking? After all, Williams practically begged to be fact-checked when he said, “What we’ve been doing is looking at the data, and we know that police somehow manage to de-escalate, disarm and not kill white people every day.”
The “police … manage to … not kill white people every day”?
Let’s start with 2014, the last year for which there are official records. According to the Centers for Disease Control, the police killed 261 whites and 131 blacks. The CDC also found that from 1999 to 2013, the police killed almost twice the number of whites compared to blacks, 3,160 and 1,724, respectively.
Activists promptly note that whites account for nearly 65 percent of the population and that, therefore, one would expect whites to comprise most of those killed by cops. And we are told that blacks, while 13 percent of the population, represent a much greater percentage of those killed by cops. Institutional, systemic, structural racism!
Here’s what those promoting the “police disproportionately kill black people” narrative consistently omit. Whites, despite being almost 65 percent of the population, disproportionately commit less of the nation’s violent crime – 10 percent. Blacks, at 13 percent of the population, disproportionately commit more violent crime. As to murders, black commit nearly half. Yet whites are 50 percent of cop killings.
Criminology professor Peter Moskos looked at the numbers of those killed by officers from May 2013 to April 2015 and found that 49 percent were white, while 30 percent were black. “Adjusted for the homicide rate,” says Moskos, “whites are 1.7 times more likely than blacks to die at the hands of police.” So if anything, whites have more to complain about than Mr. Williams….
Just a very quick explanation of the above. Using newer stats, if you had 100 black men lined up on a street on one side, and on the other side you had one-hundred white men lined up on the street, and a white man walked down the middle of the street… he would be 27-times more likely to be assaulted and then killed by the black men. Again, keep in mind that blacks make up almost 12.6% of the population and whites make up 77.35% of the population.
Here Larry Elder (a statistician in his own right) notes reports from the DOJ and other sources to bring the reader into alignment with something beyond a false narrative they heard from a friend:
…The National Institute of Justice is the research and evaluation agency of the DOJ. In 2013, the NIJ published its study called “Race, Trust and Police Legitimacy.” Unlike when responding to dispatch calls, police officers exercise more discretion when it comes to traffic stops. Thus, the supposedly “racial profiling” cops can have a field day when it comes to traffic stops, right?
But according to the NIJ, 3 out of 4 black drivers admit being stopped by police for a “legitimate reason.” Blacks, compared to whites, were on average more likely to commit speeding or other traffic offenses. “Seatbelt usage,” said the NIJ, “is chronically lower among black drivers. If a law enforcement agency aggressively enforces seatbelt violations, police will stop more black drivers.” The NIJ conclusion? Numerical disparities result from “differences in offending” in addition to “differences in exposure to the police” and “differences in driving patterns.”
President Obama, backed by research from the left and from the right, said, “Children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime; nine times more likely to drop out of school and 20 times more likely to end up in prison.”
Richmond, Virginia, is a city of 214,000, with a black population of 50 percent. Eighty-six percent of black Richmond families are headed by a single parent. Of Ferguson’s 67 percent black population, how many kids grew up in fatherless homes?
Whatever the answer, isn’t this a far more relevant statistic?