Tag Archives: Women

Switching Parties – How a Lifelong Conservative Joins the Democrats

Vote-Democrat_02

Feelings matter. When feelings are at stake there is no room for facts, logic, critical thinking, or rational ideas. Feelings trump all. And next to feelings lives fairness, which is also of critical importance. Fairness must be achieved and feelings protected at any cost. It’s taken me awhile to realize this, but now that I have I find I feel not just better, but better than you. My feelings and sense of fairness have made me quite superior to others. So I’ve decided to become a democrat.

It isn’t as if I’ve come to this decision lightly. I’ve had to open my mind, which is so hard for a conservative. I’ve had to abandon absolute truth in favor of a reality that exists only in my head and some of my old political science text books from college. I’ve had to learn to embrace feelings over facts which, while seemingly quite stupid, is actually very freeing. No one should be overcome by an excess of facts and logic. I’ve come to understand facts and logic are racist.

There are several reasons I’ve decided to abandon a principled lifestyle and join the “if it feels good, do it” crowd and they extend beyond all the free birth control I’m now going to hoard. I’ve outlined these reasons and I think after reading them and examining your own feelings, you’ll walk the path of enlightenment with me.

I’ve decided to become a democrat because the best strategy in war is defeat. I’m vociferously anti-war when there’s a republican in office. Obviously. I’ll even lie about the reasons we’re involving ourselves in conflict (that “no blood for oil” slogan was genius; I wish I was a democrat then) because it’s obvious republicans only go to war to kill brown people. I feel that way, so it must be true. But while I won’t be quite so vocally anti-war when a democrat is in charge, I will still work to undermine our troops and compromise the mission as much as I can from my cozy Southern California living space. I will support politicians who champion cut and run strategies, who want to drastically cut the defense budget, and who’ve never spent a minute in a uniform because pacifism is the path to peace, and I feel that history has proven as much.

I’ve decided to become a democrat because the best way to prove I’m not a racist is to be totally racist while accusing my opposition of being racist. Following in the footsteps of one of my democrat heroes, Lyndon B. Johnson, I’ll continue his dream of having “those n*ggers voting democratic for the next 200 years” (I learned all about his disdain of minorities in Ronald Kessler’s Inside the White House, but I forgive him for it because he was a democrat so I’m sure he felt he had a good reason). Now that I’m a democrat, I am convinced minorities (and gays and women, for that matter) are fundamentally incapable of achieving the same level of success a white man can based solely upon their accidents of birth. I believe that the only way the lesser human beings can function in society is with government mandated success in the form of affirmative action, set asides, and quotas. I support democrat politicians and policies who want to keep minorities in stomach churning poverty because I sure don’t want them in my neighborhood. The bonus is, while I can vote to keep them segregated from me (other than the uppity Uncle Toms who succeed in spite of themselves, but I deal with them by belittling and defining them as race traitors) I can simultaneously convince them that the republicans, who champion policies to lift people of all colors out of poverty, are racist because they believe everyone, regardless of color, gender, or sexual orientation have the same opportunity to live the American dream if the government would just get out of the way. Republicans are such assholes.

I’ve decided to become a democrat because no woman should be punished with a baby but babies should be punished for existing. Have you met a baby? Those things are horrible. Unless they’re wanted, in which case they’re fine but if they’re unplanned? Unimaginably awful. Now that I’m a democrat I’ve come to realize that women are weak and need to be coddled. We not only need a collection of men (the government) to provide us with contraceptives because let’s face it, math is hard; we cannot possibly work nine dollars worth of pills into our budgets, but we also need the government to create the “right” to kill our inconvenient babies. We’re irresponsible and flighty. We’re stupid enough to get pregnant unintentionally and some republican without a uterus is going to trust us with a baby? No. I know that women cannot possibly rise to the occasion of their circumstances. It’s too hard and we can’t expect women to do hard things. And if a baby has to die because a woman is incapable of raising it in all but the utopian best of circumstances? Well, according to another of my leftist heroes (I don’t recognize the feminized version of the word anymore because sexism) Melissa Harris Perry, a baby, whether born or not, is not alive until I feel like it is.

I’ve decided to become a democrat because socialism isn’t unsuccessful, it just hasn’t been implemented successfully because the wrong people have been in charge. If we elect leaders, and I think we finally have in Dear Leader Barack Obama (blessed be his name) who can do socialism the right way, we’re in business. After all, the only human event on par with feelings is fairness and have you even read Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle?

I’ve decided to become a democrat because criminals should be understood, not punished. Now that I value my personal feelings over objective facts, I’ve decided that when people commit crimes it isn’t their fault. Criminals are nothing but products of their environment, and I’m convinced their environment was created by racist republicans. Therefore, instead of locking away violent animals who have earned complete separation from society, we should understand that they likely had hard lives. Perhaps they came from abusive homes or they were loners in high school. Can we ever really know what external forces create criminal behavior? I’m not sure we should even try to find out since, as a democrat now, I can no longer support things like “effort” or “success”.

I’ve decided to become a democrat because the government is much better at child rearing than parents. Let’s face it. Republicans can’t parent and democrats shouldn’t have to (after all, anti-woman republicans have pushed through legislation forcing us to birth at least some of our babies) so we need the government to do as much of the parenting as possible. First, these conservative republicans are putting their children to work (I even know of one who makes her six year old do hard labor on her ranch) and probably placing unrealistic expectations on them. And let’s not even talk about the abuse they call “spanking”. Clearly they need to be reined in. But more than that, as democrats we can’t be expected to perform tasks on our own. I believe the government needs to tell us how to feed, clothe, house, educate, and train our children so they can become not productive members of society, but faithful servants of the state.

Finally, I’ve decided to become a democrat so I can retire my brain and coast along on feelings, all while suffering no consequences or having to be self sufficient. I have no wish to work anymore, but to declare myself a member of a protected class entitled to a life of leisure on someone else’s dime. Who’s with me?

 

Jabberwonky – July 21st

JabberwonkyCDNFinal

JabberwonkyCDNFinal

When: Sunday, July 21st, 10pm Eastern/7pm Pacific

Where: Jabberwonky on Blog Talk Radio

What:

`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

Whether it’s “down the rabbit hole”, or “through the looking glass”, the world of politics is often referred to in the lexicon given to us by Lewis Carroll. No matter what, those terms are resurrected when referring to something that has gone terribly wrong. And that’s what’s here on Jabberwonky…

Tonight: Liz Harrison brings up some interesting points about the what the left really has been up to when it comes to its agenda on gay marriage. Also, politicizing tragedy, and the real wars on women in the U.S. (yes, that is plural.)

Listen to internet radio with CDNews Radio on BlogTalkRadio

Misrepresenting The “Fetal Heartbeat” Texas Bill

Geoff Livingston (CC)

Geoff Livingston (CC)

Geoff Livingston (CC)

 Certain parts of the Internet went started frothing at the mouth on Thursday and Friday over another Texas abortion bill. Think Progress wrote, Republicans were looking “criminalize abortion services after a fetal heartbeat can be detected.” Huffington Post wrote the glaring headline, “Six-Week Abortion Ban Introduced In Texas.” Salon said the bill would “face harsh criticism and fierce opposition from the thousands of Texans rallying against the Republican-controlled Legislature’s efforts to eliminate access to safe abortion care in the state.” Raw Story had a similar post.

 There are two problems with how House Bill 59 is being characterized:

  1. The bill won’t be debated this year: Republican State Representative Phil King released a statement saying there aren’t any hearings planned on the measure, and the bill won’t be considered until January 2015.

  2. The bill will probably never be law: The key text of the bill can be found in Section Two, where it says the subchapter can’t be enforced until the U.S. Supreme Court overturns Roe vs. Wade; a federal or state court restores, expands or clarifies the authority the states have on abortion; or an amendment to the U.S. Constitution is passed restoring, expanding or clarifying the authority the states have on abortion.

 The Supreme Court isn’t expected to decide on abortion ever again, and it’s unlikely a Constitutional amendment will ever be passed. To Think Progress and Salon’s credit, they have edited their stories to point out Section Two of the bill. HuffPost and Raw Story have not.

 Similar outrage happened with Texas House Bill 2, where opponents claimed all abortion would be banned after 20 weeks and almost all abortion clinics in Texas would have to close. However, Subsection 171.046 says abortion can be done if “in the physician’s reasonable medical judgment,” there is a condition that affects the woman’s health or the child has severe fetal abnormality. Section 11, part b gives clinics until September 2014 to meet the new standards or else they won’t be allowed to perform abortions.

 It’s understandable the abortion issue (and any social issue) causes a ton of emotion. But people need to be armed with the facts, before debating the merits of a particular bill or law. If they don’t, then there’s no point to any debate because it will only end in harsh words, hurt feelings and damaged relationships.

Social Experiment: What do others see in us?

artist

Ladies, this one is for you!  You Are More Beautiful Than You Think!

As women, we tend to be very hard on ourselves. What do other people see in us?

This video sponsored by Dove shows a group of women what people see in them. A very eye-opening video.

YouTube Description:

Women are their own worst beauty critics. Only 4% of women around the world consider themselves beautiful. At Dove, we are committed to creating a world where beauty is a source of confidence, not anxiety. So, we decided to conduct a compelling social experiment that explores how women view their own beauty in contrast to what others see.


H/T Smart Girl Politics

When Did Success Become Anathema to Feminists?

Screen Shot 2013-03-10 at 12.30.07 AM

We live in a two income household nation, and the days of men being the sole breadwinners are dying.  Women are the majority of wage earners, and if the trends continue, they’ll become the main income earners by 2030.  So, women have made massive strides in the socio-economic landscape, and that’s a good thing.  However, when it comes to successful women, feminists can’t stand them.

It seems idiotic.  Feminists have long clamored that there aren’t enough women in Congress, corporate board rooms, sports, etc., but seem perfectly content with cannibalizing their own when one manages to make it to the top.

Sheryl Sandberg, the Chief Operating Officer of Facebook, and Yahoo! CEO Marissa Mayer are the newest victims of feminist wrath.  It’s because they go against the norm.  Hanna Rosin aptly noted that Mayer’s critics “believe in collective action,” and anyone that deviates from what the feminist establishment thinks is punished.  Hence, why conservative women are vilified without mercy, despite that fact that some have attained positions of power within male-dominated fields, particularly in politics.  In the world of media, feminist antipathy is no different.

Katie Roiphe of Slate wrote last week that:

The main critiques of Sandberg and Mayer boil down to the fact that they are “not like us.” And yet, it is precisely because they are not like us that we should admire them, or at least be pleased, abstractly, about their existence on earth.

It also seems like a feminist mistake to expect women entrepreneurs to create little utopias instead of running extremely successful businesses. Mayer was attacked recently for her decision not to allow employees to work at home. She is a woman, this line of thinking goes, how could she think women should have to work away outside of their houses, away from their children? But why should Marissa Mayer have some special responsibility to nurture her employees with a cozy, consummately flexible work environment just because she is a woman? Isn’t her responsibility to run a company according to her individual vision? If we want powerful female entrepreneurs shouldn’t we allow them to pursue entrepreneurial power?

The strange idea that women who are successful must represent all women, or somehow be like all women, is both totally absurd and completely prevalent. How could someone in the position of Sandberg or Mayer live exactly like most women in America? Mayer attracted criticism for taking too short a maternity leave and for saying her baby is easy, because women with any sort of success or advantage are supposed to be self-deprecating. They are supposed to complain or evoke the terribleness of their lives, so that other women will not be threatened, to diffuse the powerful and frightening competitive instinct. This is an expectation most of us pick up in middle school, but the fact that it persists and lives on in the blogosphere and newspaper columns among grownup critics and pundits is shameful.

Roiphe cited Anna Holmes of the New Yorker, who took Maureen Dowd and Jodi Kantor of the New York Times to task for taking Sandberg’s quote (“I always thought I would run a social movement”) out of context to make her look “arrogant.”

The original, quite reasonable quote was: “I always thought I would run a social movement, which meant basically work at a nonprofit. I never thought I’d work in the corporate sector.” But even if she had said the sentence, as a standalone aspiration, why should out-scale over the top ambition in a woman be considered arrogant or unappealing? Why is there so much resentment and mockery aimed at women with grand visions?

Hanna Rosin, also of Slate, noted how Mayer doesn’t consider herself a feminist, and thinks women of that mold are “militant,” with “a chip on their shoulder.”  Gasp!  It’s a duel between the individualist, independent-thinking woman and the collective tyrants of the secret circle.  Sandberg has stated that women themselves may be the problem when it comes to advancing in the workplace, as Norah O’Donnell reported on 60 Minutes. Rosin used Sandberg’s new book to convey this point.

… [the] tension between the individual and the collective is at the heart of the debate over Facebook executive Sheryl Sandberg’s “lean in” idea. Sandberg is publishing a book of advice to young women executives at the same time as she launches a “consciousness raising” movement complete with specific instructions on how to run lean-in circles. But that kind of collective action feels at odds with the advice in the book. In the book, out next week, Sandberg tells women how to negotiate for higher salaries and promotions, how to nurture their own ambition, how to behave at work if they want to advance. It is all excellent advice, but it’s not the stuff of a consciousness-raising movement. It’s advice for this age of meritocracy, when feminist success largely means professional advancement, one woman at a time. What happens if you’re up against another woman for a promotion? In Sandberg’s world, you go for it.

Hence, why – ironically – independent women, like Mayer and Sandberg, are anathema to the feminist establishment.  They aren’t thinking like a feminist. They’re thinking about their careers, and their own interests.  Men do the same thing.  In fact, anyone who wants to get ahead will do the same thing.  As Robert Frost once said, “I do not want to live in a homogenous society, I want the cream to rise.”

This problem that feminists have with women succeeding relates to their movement as a whole.  It’s a common criticism that the third – and current – wave of feminism lacks a clear vision for the 21st century. What issues, if there are any, are left for women to campaign on that haven’t already been addressed.  There’s nothing new in the arsenal.  All that is left is what needs to be built on, and that isn’t necessarily a compelling call to arms.

Kristin Rowe-Finkbeiner wrote in her book the F-Word: Feminism in Jeopardy – Women, Politics, and the Futurethat the third wave is lost in the wilderness.

The lack of a cohesive movement is the crisis of the third wave.” Or as one of the young women she interviewed remarks, “In a nutshell, my problem with the third wave is that I think we’re a whiny bunch of elitists who think we’re so smart, but we’re not doing anything but power knitting. The lack of a political movement is huge, yet we feel so smug.”

What seems to frighten feminists about Sandberg and Mayer – and Rosin and Roiphe write this as well – is that feminism really didn’t help them rise to the top.  Furthermore, Rosin wrote that the crowd that Sandberg is trying to attract, of which Mayer is also a member, really don’t see much feminism has to offer in terms of advancing their careers.

Roiphe added:

the word feminist is of little use to us now, but if we are interested in female power then we should let our powerful women pursue power, without harassing them with our distaste for that pursuit. We should not expect them to be warmer, fuzzier, more nurturing than their male counterparts because to do so is to impose sexist expectations.

Could the feminist bashing of successful women be a manifestation of that frustration?  Is the “not being needed” angst driving this madness?  If so, the feminist establishment has a mindset of “these ladies have to go,” and hopefully the next crop will be more palatable to the cause. That’s one way to destroy a movement.  It’s something conservatives should’ve considered when they excluded GOProud at CPAC this year.

Either way, I say let women be women.  Better yet, let them be “American” – or “capitalist” – in their economic pursuits, which is grounded in being more aggressive, more competent, and more productive than your competition.  If a woman rises to the top, so be it.  She should be congratulated. We’re a meritocracy, and everyone should get a boost from the increased competition.  As for feminists, I suggest they go moan in a corner someplace else.  I want the economy to roar back –with men and women alike – and feminism isn’t helping anyone.

Why Hello G.I. Jane

Screen Shot 2013-01-29 at 10.41.41 AM

Screen Shot 2013-01-29 at 10.41.41 AMAs Bridget Johnson tattled this morning, polls show support for women in combat.  There has been a lot of discussion regarding Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta lifting the ban on women in combat positions.  As Fox News posted on January 24:

The change would open hundreds of thousands of front-line positions and potentially elite commando jobs to women. Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey both approved the change Thursday, and the White House separately said it endorsed the decision.  The groundbreaking move recommended by the Joint Chiefs of Staff overturns a 1994 rule banning women from being assigned to smaller ground combat units. Panetta’s decision gives the military services until January 2016 to seek special exceptions if they believe any positions must remain closed to women.

Slate had a piece from a veteran, Kayla Williams, which detailed that women have been on the frontlines for years.  In fact, 150 U.S. servicewomen in our armed forces have been killed in Iraq of Afghanistan.  It also could be to our advantage, as we try to maneuver ourselves out of Afghanistan since:

[T]hose who served in Iraq and Afghanistan came to understand that in complex counterinsurgency operations, especially in Muslim nations, the presence of women troops is a vital way to interact with the civilian population—so important, in fact, that military leaders have long been skirting the old regulations by placing women in combat units.

However, Williams is a realist about this policy shift, and noted that it’ll be phased in over the years.

Much work remains to be done to implement this landmark reform. It is likely that the military will follow a multiyear process for phasing in changes, similar to that planned by the Australian military….the U.S. military services (particularly the Army and Marines) may argue that some jobs, particularly in the Special Forces, should remain closed to women. But as women continue to prove their abilities in a growing number of positions, those exclusions will become harder to justify.

It is true that not all women can handle the physical demands of military service. However, neither can all men. In fact, only 25 percent of today’s young people qualify for military service at all—the rest are too obese, too poorly educated, or have criminal backgrounds that bar them. Today [Jan. 24] Panetta is acknowledging that to maintain the high standards of the military, assignments should be based on ability, not gender.

Key in critical aspects of counter-insurgency, helping ease the strain on our ground forces, and providing a buffer from the lack of qualified candidates to fill the ranks in the future –  it sounds rational to lift the ban, right?  Not really, in fact, some conservatives, like the editors at National Review, feel that the military isn’t the area for progressive social experimentation.  Furthermore, if we are going to do this, it needs to be comprehensive, and the standards for women in combat need to go all the way.
The Editors at National Review on January 25 had this to say about the ban lift.

The administration has promised that there will be no reduction of physical standards to accommodate women in combat roles, but that promise almost certainly is false — and Senator McCain, who has endorsed the move, should know better than to pretend otherwise. The political mandate to integrate women into the military had disastrous consequences for standards at West Point, as Walter Williams documented the last time we had this debate. The use of “gender-specific” physical standards meant that female candidates were given passing marks on tests when underperforming their male counterparts on such common benchmarks as push-ups, sit-ups, and running 1.5 miles.This repeats the experience of similar civilian agencies, such as police and fire departments, in which standards have been lowered under the guise of revising them for professional relevance. One particularly comical feature of these developments has been the authorities’ insistence that they are acting independently of political pressure while simultaneously acknowledging that they are motivated by the fear of litigation brought by feminist groups. The ideological absurdity at play here is hard to exaggerate: When members of the Los Angeles city council demanded hiring quotas for the LAPD and a consequent relaxation of standards, they argued that concerns about physical difference could be overcome by implementing a “feminist approach to policing.” We pray that we may be spared a feminist approach to national security.

Some female veterans are skeptical about the change.  Virginia Kruta, a ten-year army veteran, posted on her blog that:

The military is strong in part because it is the most discriminatory workplace in the nation. You can be kept out, fired, or barred from promotion simply for being too tall, too short, too thin, too fat, too sick, too injured,too stupid, and the list goes on. Every move it has made in the direction of political correctness has been a move away from strength.

Jazz Shaw at Hot Air quoted a female Marine, known as “Sentry,” who gave this testimony, and delved into the one area that’s on everyone’s mind: physical limitations.
 … deployed to Anbar Province, Iraq. When I was active duty, I was 5’6, 130 pounds, and scored nearly perfect on my PFTs. I naturally have a lot more upper body strength than the average woman: not only can I do pull-ups, I can meet the male standard. I would love to have been in the infantry. And I still think it will be an unmitigated disaster to incorporate women into combat roles. I am not interested in risking men’s lives so I can live my selfish dream.
[…]
Regarding physical limitations, not only will a tiny fraction of women be able to meet the male standard, the simple fact is that women tend to be shorter than men. I ran into situations when I was deployed where I simply could not reach something. I wasn’t tall enough. I had to ask a man to get it for me. I can’t train myself to be taller. Yes, there are small men…but not so nearly so many as small women. More, a military PFT doesn’t measure the ability to jump. Men, with more muscular legs and bones that carry more muscle mass than any woman can condition herself to carry, can jump higher and farther than women. That’s why we have a men’s standing jump and long jump event in the Olympics separate from women. When you’re going over a wall in Baghdad that’s ten feet high, you have to be able to be able to reach the top of it in full gear and haul yourself over. That’s not strength per se, that’s just height and the muscular explosive power to jump and reach the top. Having to get a boost from one of the men so you can get up and over could get that man killed.
 Heather MacDonald at National Review also mentioned this obstacle, and called this move is a “disastrous mistake.”
 The number of women who are the equal to reasonably well-developed men in upper-body strength and who have the same stamina and endurance is vanishingly small. Because the number of women who will meet the military’s already debased physical-fitness standard will not satisfy the feminists’ demand for representation, the fitness standard will inevitably be lowered across the board or for women alone, as we have seen in civilian uniformed forces.
[…]
If a woman is taken prisoner, will special efforts be made to rescue her to save her from the risk of rape? If so, the necessary equality among unit members will be destroyed. If, however, policy requires that she take her chances along with the male captives, we are requiring men to squelch any last remaining vestige of their impulse towards protection and appreciation of female difference.
MacDonald also noted that we should “expect a windfall to the gender-sensitivity-training industry, which will be called in both before and after the entry of women into combat units to eradicate endemic male sexism.”
Our military is the best in the world.  Our soldiers are, for the lack of a better word, killing machines – not office co-workers.  However, I still have no problem with women on the front lines for the reasons I mentioned above.  However, that’s dependent on if the Obama administration doesn’t reduce, or dumb down, the various physical standards.  Only the best of the best, men and women alike, should be out there arranging meetings with God for our enemies.  Furthermore, just because women did well in the Summer Olympics, which is still a phenomenal achievement, doesn’t mean they’re all ready for combat.  It’s a false equivalency.
Now that gender exclusivity on the frontlines has been virtually erased, will liberals, progressives, and feminists be as vociferous in their advocacy for women  joining the Selective Service at eighteen?
Originally posted on PJ Tatler.

Is It A Woman’s World?

Screen Shot 2012-11-30 at 4.21.15 PM

I won’t lie.  I found Suzanne Venker’s piece about the ‘war on men‘ interesting, thought-provoking, and controversial.  In the process, she has reaped a whirlwind of left-wing hate.  It’s no surprise that today’s economy is better suited for women.  Manufacturing, the lynchpin of male labor, has collapsed – and now scores of men are left without the skills necessary to maneuver in the services economy.  Women are out-educating us, out-earning us, and out-performing us in the workforce.  In short, Venker says men are being stomped on, and we should be angry.  I couldn’t disagree more.

As Angela Morabito at The College Conservative wrote on November 28, women are just more ambitious at the moment.  Also, she disagreed with Venker, with whom she says got ‘gender politics wrong.’  As such, she injected a little Adam Smith into her argument.

It is true that women are getting more college degrees than our male counterparts.  That’s not because we are angry. It’s because you have to compete to get into college and the majority of the recent winners have been female. It is not because we are female that we have won: Competition drives the application process. Competition is what also should drive the economy. When we compete based on merit, and one team wins, all competitors improve in the process.

However, I would say that affirmative action policies also had a part in increasing women’s enrollment into higher education.  Yet, that’s a separate debate.  Furthermore, Morabito added that:

We  [conservatives] cannot be – nor should we be – the side that thinks women are too ambitious, too smart, or too driven. America needs all hands on deck to pull us out of this recession.  Individual liberty, personal responsibility, and freedom can still work for us today. These principles are strongest when everyone, including women, participates.

This is real conservative feminism: Women have the same freedoms as men and the same responsibilities as men. Wealth is allocated according to what we do with our freedoms and how we manage our responsibilities.  Gender doesn’t need to enter the equation.  The Left is going to freak out about it because they think women need special government “help.” But what we’re seeing now is that it’s just not true – we aren’t some feeble, marginalized group that flounders without Big Brother.

Yet, I feel inclined to defend Venker for a moment.  she mentioned in her column – and it’s true – that men worked to sustain themselves, find a woman, love her to death, and start a family.  We’re then happily burdened with providing and protecting our families, and that’s what we’ve been doing for nearly ten thousand years.  The system worked, and I liked it.

I’m the product of a household where Dad worked and Mom stayed home caring for me, loving me (to death), feeding me, and fussed over me.  She did this with my older brother and sister as well.  As a little tyke, I was King Tut.  Life was good.  However, the dynamics have changed, and we must adapt.  We’re a nation of two income households, but women have increased their share of bacon they bring home.

Liza Mundy has written about this shift in her new book, The Richer Sex, where she predicts that women will be the majority of breadwinners by 2030.  She calls it the ‘Big Flip.’  However, there have been many ‘big flips’ in socioeconomic history.  The Industrial Revolution, the invention of the Cotton gin, and the transition from an agrarian to a manufacturing-based economy in the U.S. are all prime examples of such shifts. But women were never as involved as they are now.  Hence, guys, and some conservative gals, shouldn’t freak out as much.  This is all part of the cyclical life of economic progression.  We shouldn’t be afraid.

Where Venker, I think, freaked out women, especially left-wing women, is her assertion that they’re the ones responsible for being incompatible with marriage due to their focus on building a career.  To be precise, Venker said that “fortunately, there is good news: women have the power to turn everything around. All they have to do is surrender to their nature – their femininity – and let men surrender to theirs. If they do, marriageable men will come out of the woodwork.”  This is troll city.  I can only imagine the uproar that would ensue if a woman told men to surrender their masculinity to be successful in the 21st century economy.  My response would’ve been similar: “like hell I will!”

On this rare occasion, I actually agree with what Lauren Boyle’s November 27 column on Huffington Post, where she noted that Venker’s piece degrades men.

So, if you’re keeping score at home, Venker has 1) implied that young men are pathetic, 2) flat-out stated that they don’t want to compete with women and 3) suggested that, if not corralled, all men want is sex and meaningless relationships without responsibility. If that isn’t offensive to men, what is?

Venker refers to the hundreds of men upon which she bases her opinions. But these men she describes bear no resemblance of the young men I know, who celebrate the successes of women in their lives and value them for their professional contributions.

Well, that’s because we know our existence depends on it! No, just kidding, but given the Republican Party’s abysmal stance with young, single women – we should embrace female advances in the workplace.  It’s very much aligned with conservative values.  After all, we’re the party that supports free market achievements.  Morabito puts it succinctly:

Conservatism, at its core, means equality of opportunity. We’re not there yet in this country, but we get closer every time we cut bureaucracy and improve our schools. This is, after all, what makes it easiest for more people to achieve at a high level. In a free market we all compete with one another. In a free market workers are valued for their skills, and not because of any union or demographic group they may belong to. The free market cares about cost and value. It does not care about male versus female.  Venker’s “war on men” is unfounded, just like the “war on women.” It’s time for men and women on both ends of the political spectrum to call for a ceasefire.

YES! Taking a step back from the gender politics for a second, the emphasis on the equality of opportunity is highly salient.  Both Republicans and Democrats used to agree on this.  However, we’ve seen a perverse reversal within American liberalism that stresses equality of outcome, which is indicative of the liberal dependency agenda. An agenda that is being implemented aggressively at the federal level by this current administration.  The more people on food stamps or any government program, equalizes the playing field, and enhances the public good.  Our constitution was never meant to be compatible with social dynamics of this nature.

Morabito sets the ground work for a winning narrative ahead of the 2014 elections.  Democrats needs to divide, identify, and exploit groups to win.  Hence, why they have a fetishistic attitude towards the ‘war on women,’ abortion, contraceptives, MediScaring, and racism – which are all tools that are successful in galvanizing a rabid liberal electorate.  That’s how Obama won in 2012.  Then again, it also helps the opposition when your side doesn’t make the argument.  Nevertheless, if Republicans can convey a message that is malleable with the 21st century economy – it will shatter the ‘demography is destiny’ narrative liberals are peddling right now.  Furthermore, telling women to not be barefoot, pregnant, and in the kitchen in order to be marriageable also helps.

Granted, there are still jobs that are better executed by a specific gender.  Case in point, Morabito aptly says men are better suited for professional football and women are better Victoria’s Secret models. Yet, these examples are rare.  Nevertheless, I would say the Venker does focus too much on being ‘doom and gloom.’  As I’ve said before, we, as guys, need to adapt.  Hanna Rosin, author of The End of Men, aptly made the observation that women are more flexible, and men are cardboard in this new economy.  That’s ok.  We just need to stretch more.

Like modernizing the messaging of conservatism, I look at this challenge with optimism.  Bring it on! As Barney Stinson would say, “challenge accepted.”

On a more personal note, it’s not a bad thing women are more ambitious to get into the trenches.  I have a sister, who is a mother of two, that works full-time in the human resources department at the Philadelphia Art Museum.  My sister-in-law does the same work at a non-profit in Doylestown, Pennsylvania.  I have two nieces, ages 13 months and two years old, and I hope they’re offered the same opportunities that were afforded to me. After all, they’re Vespas – and hard-work is a cornerstone of our family.

So, for the guys who are part of the ‘pissed off coalition,’ which Venker alludes to in her piece.  I suggest look at your family dynamics.  Are you really going to tell members of your own family, who are female, that they should surrender her femininity in order to get married?  That would be absurd.  It’s not a woman’s world, then again it’s no longer a man’s world either.  It’s not the end of men, but a beginning of an equilibrium amongst men and women in the workforce.  To keep the balance, guys need to get more animated, and stop slamming reading as a ‘girly’ activity.  When did that become a hallmark of masculinity?

Finally, let’s think of it in these terms.  As men, we’ve ruled the world since the beginning of time.  I don’t know about you, but I would be exhausted.  Thank God for women to help us pick up the slack.

Originally posted on The Young Cons.

Even Slate’s Feminist Blog Finds The ‘Binders’ Meme Stupid

Screen Shot 2012-10-23 at 5.47.54 PM

 

Even Slate Magazine’s feminist blog, Double X, which was co-founded by Hanna Rosin, who recently authored The End of Men, thinks the “binders full of women” meme is stupid.  Amanda Hess wrote on October 17 that she “agree[s] that Romney’s positions on health care, contraception, and the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act will do nothing to help women…binders stocked with intelligence on top-shelf female candidates, though? I’m cool with those. In a rush to discredit Romney’s position entirely, commenters are strangely spinning his underlying point—when female candidates don’t apply for jobs, employers should find them, and hire them about half the time—as somehow anti-feminist.”

Now, some groups, such as the bipartisan MassGap, noted that these “binders” were assembled before Romney was elected Governor, but it’s beside the point “because binders from feminist groups are easy for governors to trash,” according to Hess.  In all, Hess is  “more interested in what he [Romney] did with those candidates…[he] ‘appointed 14 women out of his top 33 senior-level appointments,’ which…is ‘reasonably impressive.’ Romney’s lieutenant governor and chief of staff were both women. That puts Romney’s record on hiring womenwell above the national average. Binders full of women mean cabinets full of women.”  I know, Romney is such a sexist, misogynist pig.

Granted, Hess refers to American politics as old boys’ club, but noted that Romney’s binder’s model could help women become more engaged in politics.  She cites “Women & Politics Institute Director Jennifer Lawless has found a serious discrepancy among how similarly-qualified men and women in political pipeline industries—law, policy, finance—rate their own viability as candidates….when Lawless talks to these reluctant women, she finds they have three major justifications for not throwing their hats into the ring: family responsibilities, self-doubt, and a lack of encouragement from above. Mitt Romney’s binders can help resolve two of those issues.”

In all, Hess “still found it powerful to watch the country’s most prominent Republican businessman and politician stand in front of millions of Americans and announce that stacking the deck with female candidates is not at odds with the capitalist impulse.”

Originally posted on Hot Air.

Binders Full of Women with Lady Parts in a Twist

Sunset Parkerpix (CC)


Evil conservative men like Mitt Romney objectify women, don’t you know? It’s true! They just don’t get it that it’s important to help women in the workplace, and give them special treatment there. Women especially need help when it comes to landing jobs in government! And didn’t you know, he didn’t really ask for those binders full of women? Well, Wonkette said it, so it must be true! (They also showed us about those really gross books that creepy polygamist Mormons keep! Ewwwwwww!)

And those evil Breitbart people lie! They must have made up names of women that said they were treated poorly by the Obama administration. That’s so unfair! And Obama signed the Lilly Ledbetter thing, so it can’t be true that women working for him get lower pay! We need laws like that to protect us from evil businessmen like Romney, so they pay us what we deserve. No, they don’t get that women need protecting. They just fire back with quotes like “You can’t protect women without handicapping them in competition with men. If you demand equality you must accept equality. Women can’t have it both ways.” Who the hell cares what some woman named Mary Bell-Richards said decades ago? She was wrong anyway! We can have it both ways! Just ask Obama.

But worst of all, those nasty conservatives really need to stop condemning Muslims. Islam doesn’t oppress women! It’s a good and pious religion, and they all respect women greatly. And no, Muslim men don’t get virgins in paradise – it’s just a misconception. Didn’t anyone tell them it’s really raisins?

And if the conservative men weren’t bad enough, there’s the conservative women! How dare they suggest that they are not responsible for paying for birth control for any woman that wants it? Don’t they realize that it is their responsibility to take care of all other women? We have been fighting for our rights for years, and they just don’t get it! We have the right to control our bodies, and it’s the responsibility of the state to provide us with birth control. And they are wrong about the idea that women should choose workplaces according to their own needs. It’s our right to have the government force employers to do what we want. We deserve to have everything handed to us. All that guff about personal responsibility is nonsense! Just ask Obama.

Victorious Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch Returns To Smart Girl Summit

Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch

Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch

Lt. Gov Rebecca Kleefisch, still fresh from her recall victory in June, gave the closing address at Smart Girl Summit held this past weekend.   She joked with the crowd stating that when she addressed the summit last year, many were doubtful she would have a job in the coming months. However, she said she would have come back as “a martyr”.  She is the first Lt. Governor in American history to survive a recall election.  When you turn a $3.6 billion dollar deficit into a $154 million dollar surplus, reform collective bargaining, pensions, health care, take on the special interests, and add 20,000 new jobs, you most certainly deserve to keep your job.  Yet, these initiatives were anathema to the liberals in the Badger State who apparently are hesitant to support anything that is efficient of fiscally sound.

Lt. Gov. Kleefisch was adamant that she wasn’t going to kick the can down the road and it was the unions, not the Walker administration, that picked the fight to keep the status quo.  We all remember the army of left wing protestors that stormed Madison with their horns, signs, chants, and sleeping bags.  It was a nice display of Bolshevik theater.  The Left detailed doomsday scenarios if the Walker/Kleefisch reforms were enacted.  In the end, they were and the sky didn’t fall.  Furthermore, the people of Wisconsin were left with the hotel bills the fourteen Democratic senators racked up when they fled the state and neglected their duty as public officials when they protested the reforms to collective bargaining in 2011.

It was the beginning of a chaotic year.  In 2011, eight recall elections were held to determine the majority of the state senate.  In 2012, six recall elections were held, including the races for Governor and Lt. Governor, to determine the future of Wisconsin. At the end of the night,  the voters of the Badger state were clear that they wanted Gov. Walker, Lt. Gov. Kleefisch, and the Republicans to continue their leadership and bring the state back to fiscal sanity and economic vigor.

In all, Lt. Gov. Kleefisch stated that their reforms at the state and municipal level saved the Wisconsin taxpayer $800 million dollars.  They became the 49th state to pass conceal and carry and Voter ID laws.  She concluded that we should’t be afraid to fight and do what is right in government.  When you have the courage of your convictions and do the right thing, the voters will have your back.  What makes Lt. Gov Kleefisch’s victory so fulfilling is that she was willing to lose for what she believed in and ended up winning for what she believed in.  All I can say is that we need more women, like Rebecca Kleefisch, in public service.

Walmart Moms Are Key in 2012

Alex Bratty

Alex Bratty

The 2012 election is currently in a dead heat. Americans are evenly split with 46% favoring President Obama and 45% favoring Mitt Romney.  This current election cycle just crossed the 1 billion dollar mark and 9% of the electorate is still undecided.   One of those groups that can tip the balance and could pose a threat to Obama’s re-election bid is the Walmart Moms.  Walmart Moms are defined as a group of women who have hit economic hard times, have shopped at a Walmart store in the past month, and are typically young.  In fact, 47% of all Walmart Moms have been hit with an “economic speed bump.”

Alex Bratty of Public Opinion Strategies detailed this demographic at Smart Girl Summit this past Friday.  They are identified as a swing group with moderate leanings.  They voted Democratic in 2008, but decided to takes away the president’s credit card in 2010 and sided with Republicans.  They make up 27% of all registered women voters and constitute 14% of the electorate.  Needless to say, both camps should be catering to these young moms.

Concerning party identification, they’re almost evenly split 35%-33% Democratic to Republican.  Overall, 49% of them want Republicans to control Congress compared to 39% who don’t.  This is very different considering that when compared to all women voters, 38% want the GOP to control congress while 45% do not.

In her study, Bratty and her firm found out that:

  1. Walmart Moms are not fully engaged in the campaign dialogue, but there is an increasing amount of interest in this year’s election.
    Compared to 2011 (and our online discussion groups conducted in April this year), these moms seem more interested in the upcoming presidential elections. They are aware that the race is between President Obama and Mitt Romney, and some can describe certain differences between the two candidates. A few in each group have already seen some campaign ads. However, their knowledge tends to be somewhat vague. It is clear they are still not fully engaged and cannot describe the campaigns or the candidates with much detail.
  2. President Obama is more recognizable and familiar to these moms, while Mitt Romney is still largely unknown.As might be expected, these Walmart Moms are more familiar with President Obama and his family than with Mitt Romney. Indeed, both groups tend to know very little about Romney. They know he is a businessman, and some note he is a family man, but most are unable to offer many other specifics.

     

    WALMART MOMS: UNSURE ABOUT BOTH CANDIDATES & UNDECIDED IN THEIR VOTE

    1. Walmart Moms have doubts about both candidates.Although these moms are more familiar with President Obama, some have doubts about his abilities to get the country moving in the right direction. Specifically, some say Obama has not delivered on his 2008 campaign promises, or say he has not done more during his last three years to address the economy. And, there are mixed views on what he has done so far: some give him praise for health care reform, while others view it negatively.As for Romney, some moms perceive him as being out of touch, citing his personal demeanor or wealth as signs of this. Nonetheless, there is some uncertainty around who he is and most moms are just beginning to learn about him, his positions and what he stands for.
    2. Romney’s business background produces different points of view.These Walmart Moms in Richmond and Las Vegas are most likely to describe Mitt Romney as a businessman. Moms in both groups acknowledge the potential benefits of having a president with his experience. Some moms hope his success means he can apply his knowledge and skillset to the country’s economy if elected. One mom said the country “is like a big business.”However, some moms seem to be more worried about Romney’s business background. They mention he has closed factories and say he has cut jobs in the past, making them question how he might approach his term in office if elected.
    3. The families of the candidates are very important as these moms consider their vote.Make no mistake, the family lives of the candidates do matter. One of the first attributes the moms associate with each candidate is being a “good family man.” These moms give kudos to Michelle Obama and her work on healthy eating/living; and Latina Walmart Moms note that they can identify with her as a minority woman. They also appreciate that Obama has daughters and is “surrounded by women.”Mitt Romney is also recognized and praised as being a family man. However, since they know less about him, they also know less about his family at this time, and none are able to talk about his wife and children.

    Charlie Cook also reiterated similar points in his column in the National Journal back in June when Bratty’s report was published stating:

There was a split between those who thought that President Obama had his chance to turn things around and those who hesitated about changing presidents when things were so bad. They were uncertain about having to start all over with change in a different direction. With few notable exceptions, these women did not identify so much with “women’s issues” as they did with “moms’ issues.”

For these women, Mitt Romney’s business background seems to be a double-edged sword: There’s an assumption that as a successful businessman, he brings some expertise to the table when it comes to the economy. But the perception of him being cool and aloof, and the impact of negative ads about his private-equity firm throwing people out of work, raised doubts about his motivations. There were questions about whether he would side with the average American.

Cook concludes, stating:

Many of these women are still window-shopping this election. Clearly, they knew more about Obama. Most had some degree of comfort with him, though they were concerned that he hadn’t been more effective. Romney, though, was a blank slate. These voters know little about him beyond the fact that he has been a wildly successful businessman. But what little they know came mostly from Democratic attack ads. In other words, they’re still listening.

Mr. Romney, take notice.

Welcome to the Bureau of Womanhood Conformity

bureau_of_womanhood

SBA list’s new ad, “Womanhood”.

If it feels like 1984 in real life, it should. The threats to our religious liberty and conscience rights are very real. The question that needs to be asked of this president is “who decides”? Time and time again, President Obama has affirmed that it is the government who decides — government who decides what women want and think.

Find out more at: www.respectmyvoice.com

Sharon Bialek: Why Women Like Her Are A Danger To Us All

The world now has the name of at least one of the “anonymous” women accusing Presidential Candidate Herman Cain of sexual harassment.

As I sat watching the presss conference yesterday, I went from rolling my eyes, to angry, to being literally sick at my stomach, all the way back to being angry again.

Why would this make me angry, you ask? Why can’t I simply chalk it up to what some would consider an attention seeker, and what others will simply call a liar? Let me explain why. But, let me warn you, if you like nice little stories, this is not one you want to read. This is the perfect time to exit this article.

For those of you who have not left, and would like to know why Sharon Bialek has made me so angry, we have to travel back in time a bit. We have to go back a bit further in history than the 15 years Sharon Bialek is talking about.

The year is 1987- a full 10 years before the alleged Cain-Bialek incident. There was a young girl, naive in the ways of the world, yet thought she knew it all. She was what most would call a “good girl”, but not for the typical reasons those words are used to describe a young lady. For the most part, she did what she was told, got good grades, and stayed out of trouble. What her parents did not realize what she had a sneaky streak a mile wide and 100 miles long – a streak that would change her life forever.

One Saturday night she spent the night with a friend. While her parents knew the parents of this other girl, they were not real close, and did not know the troubled past of the other girl.

That night, the girls went to the skating rink. Now, that might not sound like a big deal to you, but to this young girl, this was a bit of the “forbidden fruit”. She had never gone to the skating rink without her parents, so for her to be able to go “hang out” at the skating rink with a friend was almost too good to be true. You could tell she was a bit uncomfortable in her surroundings, not quite knowing exactly what to do.

Her friend’s boyfriend had met them up there, and after introductions were made, further plans for the night began to shape up. The friend said to her boyfriend, “We have to find someone for her!” The girl was very adamant that she didn’t “want” to have someone “found” for her. Throughout the night, the boyfriend pointed out a friend of his, asking what she thought of him. None were of interest to her, and she kept saying no.

The night at the skating rink ended, and the friends’ dad came to pick the girls up. They went home to hang out like all girls do when they spend the night with friends.

Several times throughout the night her friend had talked about “when the guys picked them up”, or “when we sneak out”. She told her friend she was not going to sneak out. She was rock solid, never wavering in her answer. There was absolutely no way she would sneak out. She knew she had no business outside in the middle of the night. But her friend kept piling on the peer pressure. The closer to midnight it came, the more pressure was put on. She continued to say no.

When her friend decided she would go with or without the young girl, it was an awkward moment. Then the fateful words were spoken. “If you are really my friend, you’ll go with me!”

And she gave in. Against her better judgement, she heaved a very heavy sigh of reluctance, and climbed out the window. She was a klutz, so simply getting outside was an adventure in and of itself.

The girls walked down the long, dark road, one silent, one very animated. She knew she shouldn’t be here. She felt the dread in her heart heavier than anything she had ever known. However, she was a true friend. She would always be a true friend. So she would put on a brave face for the night.

Little could she have known that a brave face was what she would need to get through the next decade of her life!

At the end of the dark, country road was the intersection to the main road going through their little town. On the corner was a church. This was the meeting place. The “guys” were to pick them up at the church. The girls waited, and waited, and waited. The meeting time passed. After much discussion, she finally convinced her friend that they should go back home. So they started walking back up the same long, dark country road they had walked down. They had not made it far when they saw headlights. The car stopped. It was “the guys”.

The friend’s boyfriend was driving, and he had indeed brought “a friend” along with him. She climbed awkwardly into the backseat with him, and shyly said hello. Her friend was laughing and telling her boyfriend how they thought the guys were not going to pick them up, and they were headed back home. They were driving around, going nowhere in particular. After a short time, they turned down a bumpy dirt road, pulled up in the rough circle that had been made by many cars before them. The driver parked the car, turned off the ignition, and turned the key over so the music would still play.

The occupants in the front seat immediately turned to each other and began making out.

She was in the backseat, all alone with a “guy” she had never met before, and had no clue what to do. She knew she was not going to make out with him, she didn’t even know him. He was talking to her, inviting her to move closer to him. She didn’t want to be rude, but she was already close enough to be able to smell the beer on his breath. To say she was uncomfortable is an understatement.

He was nice enough, at first, but seemed to be bothered by the fact that she wasn’t as aggressive as her friend was in the front seat. He even made a comment about how well the two in the front seat were getting along.

She can’t remember exactly how things progressed to the point it had, but she was now beside him, facing him. It happened so quickly. She remembers being very uncomfortable with it, and even more uncomfortable when he began kissing her.

If you asked her parents or others who knew her, they would say she was quite “boy crazy”. She always talked about liking this boy or that boy. But this was not the innocent little girl liking a boy in her class. This was something very different- something very grown up. She was not ready for anything like this, and she knew it!

While she knew what kissing was, and had already had her “first kiss”, remember…. she was very naive- and again, I stress naive! You can imagine her surprise when things took an abrupt turn in the back seat, and the “guy” was no longer kissing her, but was pushing her head to his crotch. All that kept going through her mind was, “What is he doing??”

Unfortunately, it didn’t take long for her to find out what he was doing, but she did not understand what he wanted her to do. When he forced her to do what he wanted, she was so shocked and surprised she literally began to gag and choke. Fighting to regain control of her breath and her senses, she bit him. This made him angry. He decided to do things differently.

She was quite relieved when he pulled her up, expecting to just sit back quietly. However, he had other things in mind. Her world immediately went into a tailspin when he threw her on her back, across the seat. She struggled against him, fighting to sit up. He was much bigger than she was, so though she tried desperately to defend her innocence, she was no match for him. In one swift move, he slapped her face, she reached up to touch where he had hit. And her innocence was gone.

She laid there crying, praying for it to end. What was her friend doing? Why wasn’t she helping her? Surely they had heard- and felt the car moving- as she struggled against him. But they were too busy doing their own thing to take notice of her.

Her face stung where he had hit her. She didn’t fight back anymore, just hoping it would end soon. She tried to ignore the searing pain that ripped through every fiber of her body, concentrating instead on the song that played on the radio. She clung to every musical note and every single word. Until the day she dies that song will have a hauntingly beautiful place in her heart. If she hears it today, she instantly goes back to that night, yet, it is her comfort.

Once it was all over, he simply pushed her aside. In a daze, she sat up and redressed. She realized that her clothes were wet where he had spilled beer on her.

The occupants in the front seat had ended their festivities, and had sat up and redressed. Everyone was talking and laughing at this point- that is, everyone but her.

What seemed like forever, but surely couldn’t have been more than an hour or so later, the “guys” finally dropped them off back on the dark country road once again.  After a hearty round of goodbyes from everyone- except for her- the girls got out of the car to head home. As she got out of the backseat, her legs wobbled and she nearly collapsed. She quickly collected herself, stood up, and began walking away. She never looked back.

It was difficult for her to walk. She was in so much pain. She didn’t fully understand everything that had happened to her. And here was her “friend” beside her, chattering away about how much fun she had that night. It suddenly became apparent to the friend that she was not so excited, and the friend asked what was wrong.

In an instant, she whirled on the other girl who she had once called “friend”.

With anger she never knew she was capable of, she spat back at the girl, “HE RAPED ME!”

~*~*~*~*~

I am that girl. When I was 14-years-old I was raped.

While I can tell the story in great detail, I can assure you I can never be so flippant and lighthearted in retelling it. I know what happened to me. I will never forget. I don’t have to have “the story” written on a piece of paper. If I am telling what happened to me, I don’t have to find my place on a page. I can pick up the story at any point and tell it just the same.

It is true, Sharon Bialek was not raped. However, I have my doubts as to anything she said. Her attitude is not one of a woman who was nearly assaulted, even if it is 15 years later.

Yes, there will be those who say that everyone reacts differently. That is true. It doesn’t make her story any more believable.

You will never be able to convince me that Herman Cain attempted to assault Sharon Bialek. In her story, he simply accepted her negative response and let it be. If a man is truly intent on taking advantage of a woman, assaulting her, raping her, or whatever other term you want to put to it, a simply, “You know I have a boyfriend” is not going to stop him.

Was Herman Cain ever inappropriate with her? Quite possibly. But highly doubtful.

Ms. Bialek has already cast doubt upon her trustworthiness in the story she’s told. Shame on her!

It is because of women like Sharon Bialek that ladies everywhere- young and old alike- who have been assaulted, go through the hell we have to go through to truly heal after such a horrible experience. It is bad enough to have it happen to you. It is even worse to have women claim something that happened to them when it did not.

It is because of women like Sharon Bialek that men everywhere- young and old alike- are never safe from a false accusations. At any point in time, if an accusation against them comes up, more often than not it comes down to exactly what the Cain-Bialek case is: Her word against his.

It simply comes down to who does it “benefit” as to whos story is accepted and believed.

Sharon Bialek and women like her are dangerous to us all.

Herman Cain Talks About How Accusations Of Sexual Harassment Have Affected His Campaign

On Tuesday night, Herman Cain went onto the O’Reilly Factor to discuss (among other things) how the allegations of sexual harassment have impacted his campaign.  According to him, business is better than ever.  Watch the video below to see what Cain says about how these allegations have impacted him and his campaign.

 

 

 

 

I have to admit that Cain makes some compelling points in this video, especially the fact that over a course of 42 years, these (supposedly) “baseless” accusations are the only thing he’s been confronted with.

What do you think?  Is this story finally behind him?  Or does Herman still have some ‘splainin to do?  Let us know in the comments below, or if you’re feeling really ambitious, you can rent out a billboard with your opinion on it.  Prizes will be awarded to the most creative billboard that’s submitted.  The deadline is 3pm tomorrow afternoon. (but we suggest telling us in the comments section; it’s much simpler for all of us)

« Older Entries