A website called “Muslims of Calgary” has instructions on how to “make your wife happy,” which advises men to hit their wives to “correct her mistakes.”

Correcting her Mistakes
- First, implicit and explicit advice several times.
- Then by turning your back to her in bed (displaying your feelings). Note that this does not include leavingthe bedroom to another room, leaving the house to another place, or not talking with her.
- The last solution is lightly hitting (when allowable) her. In this case, the husband should consider thefollowing:
a) He should know that sunnah is to avoid beating as the Prophet PBUH never beat a woman or a servant.
b) He should do it only in extreme cases of disobedience, e.g. refusing intercourse without causefrequently, constantly not praying on time, leaving the house for long periods of time without permissionnor refusing to tell him where she had been, etc..
c) It should not be done except after having turned from her bed and discussing the matter with her asmentioned in Qur`an.
d) He should not hit her hard injuring her, or hit her on her face or on sensitive parts of her body.
e) He should avoid shaming her such as by hitting her with a shoe, etc.

The whole set of instructions seems offensive.  It is very patronizing to the wife and makes clear that the man is the boss.  That is not how we do things in Canada (I mean, if the woman consents to that, it is a different story, but she shouldn’t be forced under the guise of religion).

Since this involves my new city of Calgary, I am going to try to keep an eye on this story.  I want to see if there is anything done about this.

The opposition (all of whom belong to the left), was predictably outraged that the “Minister for the Status of Women” “supported clawing back women’s rights,” as if there was no debate whatsoever on the issue of abortion.  This is the modus operandi of the left; to silence debate and feign outrage whenever someone does something they disagree with (thereby framing the debate in a way that makes positions they disagree with look morally unacceptable).  They are fascist control-freaks who do not tolerate freedom of thought.

There is more:

Bloc MP Maria Mourani joined the pile-on.

“She has to think about [stepping down]. Because if she doesn’t fight for women’s rights, I don’t know what she does in this place.”

Certainly, Ambrose needs to explicitly tell Canadians how she reconciles voting in favour of this bill with her duties to advocate for the rights’ of women.

Again, this suggests that there is no debate on this issue, and is framing the debate in a way that makes the assumption that women unquestionably have the right to have abortions, which many people consider murder.  If you consider abortion murder, of course you aren’t going to consider it a “woman’s right.”  In addition, Mourani makes the assumption that protecting abortion is the only job Ambrose has, which, as you can tell from the following, isn’t the case:

Ambrose’s record as Minister for Status of Women is impeccable.

In June 2012, The Canadian Press‘ Jennifer Ditchburn wrote a great column about Ambrose as a rising star in the Harper government and noted her initiatives — in Canada and internationally — spearheading the International Day of the Girl.

“Rosemary McCarney, president of Plan Canada, says Ambrose became convinced of the merit of such a day when she sat down at the United Nations to meet a group of girls from around the world.

“From the time she left that meeting with those kids, she just went at this issue, she was just a force to be reckoned with,” McCarney recalls.

UPDATE: Canada’s pro-choice culture warriors have lost their moorings (hat tip Andrew Coyne):

Among great swathes of the political left, and even the centre, the very concept of possible legal reform is seen as tantamount to vicious misogyny.

Literally.

Consider the reaction to this week’s free vote on Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth’s private members’ motion to create a parliamentary committee that would study the question of when life begins. Abortion-rights purists accuse Mr. Woodworth of seeking to build support for an abortion law. They are surely correct in this regard — and have every right to argue their view that the current anything-goes abort-at-will legal vacuum in Canada is preferable to the sort of regulatory scheme that exists in other nations. But their critique goes beyond that: Many suggest that the mere fact of the motion (which went down to defeat 203-91), and the yea vote by some Conservatives, constitutes a gesture of hatred.

Or, in the case of female MPs, self-hatred.

Globe & Mail columnist Tabatha Southey Tweeted that “Status of Women Minister Rona Ambrose voted Yea on [motion] 312. Now waiting for the Minister of Agriculture to vote against corn.” Canadian poet Paul Vermeersch wondered aloud: “After Rona Ambrose votes in Parliament against all Canadian women, will Peter Kent napalm a family of peregrine falcons in solidarity?”

Yes.  They are fascists who do not tolerate dissent (and these are the people who constantly calling conservatives “anti-science.”  Well, debate and dissent are crucial aspects of science).

Although I realize it might be better for Ryan to remain in Congress, he is probably my favorite living politician (perhaps tied with Scott Walker) so I can’t help being excited at the prospect.  He will surely get more attention, and perhaps the discussion will turn to entitlements and the tax code, which is where I think it should be.  If Romney wins and Ryan becomes vice president, hopefully he will have push President Romney to the right and Romney’s administration will be characterized by fiscal conservatism (I know the vice president is mostly a symbolic position, but do you really think Ryan would just sit back and let the USA plunge off the fiscal cliff?).  Remember, the amelioration of the USA’s fiscal crisis will benefit the rest of the world (although the more imminent threat is in Europe).

Of course, the liberal reaction to all of this speculation is what you’d expect.  They point out that Paul Ryan is a white guy, and is therefore boring.  I know I’ve seen this sort of thing many, many times before, but I still feel like I’m simultaneously astonished, disgusted, and immensely amused at the superficiality of these people.  It is very disappointing to think that we live in a world where certain skin colours or genders are considered assets (not that that is anything new). Anyway, Paul Ryan is most certainly not boring.  Its his budgets, policies, extensive knowledge, and general philosophy that makes him exciting.

Some people on the right are concerned that a Ryan nomination will attract attacks that are based on Ryan’s budget (à la the ad depicting him pushing “granny” off a cliff), which is supposedly extremist (even though it isn’t nearly extreme as I think it should be).  However, I don’t there is anything to worry about with regards to that.  The people who are far too stupid to understand that the entitlements the left loves are becoming increasingly insolvent, so they will either have to be reformed or they will be impossible to fund, wouldn’t vote for Romney anyway.  I doubt there is anyone more adept than Paul Ryan at explaining “complex” economic principles in a manner that the average person can understand, and him being selected as the running mate will give him a much larger audience to which to explain them, and Ryan doesn’t seem like the type to just let people attack him without responding.  You could think of it this way: what is more persuasive, a rabid demagogue flinging completely baseless attacks, or someone calmly refuting those attacks?  Regardless of how extreme Ryan’s budget is perceived to be, he never looks like a overzealous ideologue. He is always calm, composed, and polite, yet assertive when he needs to be.

Having said all of that, I don’t want to jump to the conclusion that Paul Ryan will be selected as Romney’s running mate.  If he isn’t, a lot of people will be disappointed.  We’ll find out for sure tomorrow.

The idea of imposing Title IX [i.e. the gender quota] on the sciences began gaining momentum around 2002. Then, women were already earning nearly 60 percent of all bachelor’s degrees and at least half of the PhDs in the humanities, social sciences, life sciences and education. Meanwhile, men retained majorities in fields such as physics, computer science and engineering. Badly in need of an advocacy cause just as women were beginning to outnumber men on college campuses, well-funded academic women’s groups alerted their followers that American science education was “hostile” to women. Soon there were conferences, retreats, summits, a massive “Left Out, Left Behind” letter-writing campaign, dozens of studies and a series of congressional hearings. Their first public victim? Larry Summers, who was forced to resign as president of Harvard University in 2006 after he dared to question the groups’ assumptions and drew a correlation between the number of women in the sciences and gender differences implied in math and science test data.

The radical feminists do not care about science; they only care about punishing men for injustices that they imagined or invented so people would pay attention to them.

Federal officials have conducted occasional equity investigations of engineering and physics programs since 2006. But these have been haphazard and far less results-oriented than what Obama and Congress have in mind. The new Title IX initiative, modeled on athletics, will gratify women’s advocacy groups. But will it help American science as much as it helped women’s basketball?

Activist leaders of the Title IX campaign are untroubled by this question. Some seem to relish the idea of starkly disrupting what they regard as the excessively male and competitive culture of academic science. American scientific excellence, though, is an invaluable and irreplaceable resource. The fields that will be most affected — math, engineering, physics and computer science — are vital to the economy and national defense. Is it wise, to say nothing of urgent, for the president and Congress to impose an untested, undebated gender parity policy at this time?

So, scientists, and anyone who cares about science, should be alarmed that “social justice” or whatever the hell this is is threatening it.  Progressives love calling conservatives anti-science, so can we call these progressives anti-science now?  Of course not, that would be sexist and probably racist.  And men, per se, don’t have the luxury of being an oppressed victim group.

If you’re like me, (and aren’t you all?) I know you’ve been waiting impatiently with one question on your minds. When, oh when, will Harvard appoint a new permanent director of BGLTQ student life? (We’re going to circle back to that acronym which caught me by surprise in a few moments.) Fear not, readers, for your long wait is over. And the winner is…

Vanidy M. Bailey will serve as director of Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender, and Queer (BGLTQ) student life beginning July 16, dean of Harvard College Evelynn M. Hammonds announced this week. Bailey, who will report to the assistant dean of student life, will oversee all initiatives that support BGLTQ undergraduates.

So… we’ve got that little chore out of the way. But wait! Steyn discovers that yet another grievous social injustice has taken place even in the midst of this happy occasion.

Alas, this long overdue shattering of the BGLTQ ceiling was marred by the Harvard Crimson’s grossly insensitive coverage:

An earlier version of this article used the pronoun “she” to refer to Vanidy “Van” Bailey, the newly appointed director of bisexual, gay, lesbian, transgender, and queer student life. In fact, Bailey prefers not to be referred to by any gendered pronoun.

I’ll bet Elizabeth Warren is kicking herself for not thinking of that one.

That is from Hot Air (h/t Twitter).  A while ago, I decided that the pronoun I would use to refer to anyone who does not fit into either of the genders is “it.”  That is probably offensive, but I don’t care.  This is actually kind of convenient, because I have no idea which gender, if any, Vanidy M. Bailey belongs to.  Neither its name, nor its picture offers any clues.

As for the term “BGLTQ,” I object to the inclusion of “T” and “Q.”  I don’t see what transgenderism has to do with homosexuality, and the word “queer” means “weird.”  The word “queer” describes more my general strangeness than it does my sexual orientation.

So, yeah… I’m not really sure what to say about Vanidy.  I sort of think that its rejection of “gender pronouns” has more to do with attention seeking than anything else.  Oh yeah, and why is there a “director of Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian, Transgender, and Queer (BGLTQ) student life”?

P.S.: I don’t use the term “it” for the purpose of being mean or insensitive, it is just the most convenient term I can think of and I don’t care if something I say is interpreted as mean or insensitive.

You may of heard about the undercover investigators uncovering offers for sex-selective abortions at Planned Parenthood.  Here in Canada, I’ve seen several stories about sex-selective abortions happening reported by CBC.  In Canada, elective abortions must occur before 20 weeks into the pregnancy.  There are a number of businesses that perform ultrasounds, which many people use to determine the gender of their child before 20 weeks into the pregnancy.  If the gender is determined to be female, many people then get an abortion.

A reporter then asked “Minister of the Status of Women” (an unnecessary position if there ever was one), Rona Ambrose, if she would support legislation making it illegal to perform sex-selective abortions.  She didn’t say that she would.  One problem with such legislation, according to the reporter, was that no party wanted to “re-open the abortion debate.”

Another problem, says some professor or something that was being interviewed, is that, because such abortions are predominant in the South Asian-community, that such legislation would be racist.  He said something to the effect of “in our culture, it would be viewed as sexist to abort a female foetus just because she is female.  In other cultures, sons are preferred, so banning sex-selective abortions would be racist.”

I don’t give a f*ck whether or not it is racist (which it isn’t, by the way). Even if you are pro-choice, I hope you would agree that aborting a foetus because she is female is wrong.  What is right and what is wrong transcend cultures.

I love abortion. I don’t accept it. I don’t view it as a necessary evil. I embrace it. I donate to abortion funds. I write about how important it is to make sure that every woman [sic]* has access to safe, legal abortion services. I have bumper stickers and buttons and t-shirts proclaiming my support for reproductive freedom. I love abortion.

And I bristle every time a fellow activist uses a trendy catch-phrase or rallying cry meant to placate pro-lifers. The first of these, “Make abortion safe, legal, and rare!” has been used for decades as a call for abortion rights.

…

[T]here is no need to suggest that abortion be rare. To say so implies a value judgement, promoting the idea that abortion is somehow distasteful or immoral and should be avoided.

The rest of that article contains some interesting statements.

[W]e must remember that extenuating circumstances like health, contraceptive failure, and rape mean that abortion will always be a normal, necessary, and reasonable choice for many women [sic]. As such, we must avoid stigmatizing it in any way. No woman [sic] benefits from even the vaguest insinuation that abortion is an immoral or objectionable option. That’s the weak argument made by misogynistic, forced-birth advocates, and it has no place in a dialogue about reproductive freedom. Terminating a pregnancy is not an unethical act, yet suggesting that abortion should be rare implies that there is something undesirable about having one.

Here’s my argument against abortion: In my view, life begins at the point at which the zygote forms (as the zygote, while just a cell, is the first distinct organism (with distinct DNA) that develops during the life cycle).  To me (based on what I know), that seems like the most reasonable definition of the point at which life begins.  Therefore, I view abortion as murder.  Now, if you’ll excuse the rabid misogyny of my argument for a moment, here’s the next thing:

Rather than trying to cozy up to the forced-birth camp, women [sic] who value their freedom should be proud to say that they like abortion. In fact, they should venerate it whole-heartedly. Abortion is our last refuge, the one final, definitive instrument that secures our bodily autonomy. What’s not to love?

In accordance with what I just said, a zygote/embryo/foetus is legally a person (in my view).  Therefore, it is entitled to the basic rights to which every other person is entitled (including the right to life).  Mizz DelBalzo frames abortion as forcing a woman to do something, but to me, that is equivalent to saying that not allowing someone to commit murder (in the legal sense of the word “murder”) is forcing them to do something (that is, they are forced to refrain from killing someone). Now you can see how absurd that particular pro-choice argument seems to me.  The way murder is usually described is as an act of depriving someone of their right to life, which is exactly how I frame abortion.

Anyway, progressives usually claim not to support abortion itself, but only support the freedom of women to have them.  However, at Netroots Nation, a crowd of progressives voiced their support for Mizz DelBalzo’s position:

The War on Women panel featuring Elizabeth Warren revealed much about the leftist perspective on abortion. In an act of public bullying, one of the three speakers, Darcy Burner of Washington (the others being Elizabeth Warren and Mazie Hirono of Hawaii), asked women who had had an abortion to stand up in front of other attendees. It was difficult to estimate the number of women as they were sprinkled through out the audience. They stood alone while Burner admonished the attendees to hold their applause. Then Burner asked the others seated in the audience to stand and give these women a standing ovation. The audience complied enthusiastically. I sat during this spectacle.

Burner said, “If you are a woman in this room, and statistically this is true of about 1/3 of the women in this room, if you’re a woman in this room who has had an abortion and is willing to come out about it, please stand up.” She continued, “Now, if you are willing to stand with every woman who is willing to come out about having had an abortion, please stand up.” Nearly everyone stood. Burner said, “This is how we change the stories in people’s [heads]. We need to make it okay for women to come out about the choices they make.”

Here’s video of the session.  The moment Clouthier describes comes around the 10:00 mark.  Note how Burner twice has to admonish conference attendees to hold their approbation until the end, interrupting them when they prove too eager to applaud the standing women.  “Don’t, please…wait, wait,” she scolds them, after some premature organic applause breaks out.

*The correct term is “womyn.”  Don’t these so-called “feminists” realize they are submitting to the man’s phallocentric worldview?

Studying this population at all is pretty amazing. All qualitative researchers confront issues of access, but this struck me as a population incredibly difficult to access. Pande was clearly not deterred by this fact. In fact, one of the initial ways she entered the field was to have “balcony talks” with domestic workers. Migrant domestic workers have sort of colonized balconies as a space for outreach and assistance–some in circumstances of incredibly cruelty and hardship. They speak across balconies with other domestic workers to ask about wages, time off, and trade tips for dealing with some of the more challenging issues with employers. It is a space to which many of them are largely relegated; yet they have found an interesting way of utilizing the space in a way that allows for what Pande refers to as meso-level collective action–playing on James Scott’s conceptualization of “infrapolitics” (here). But their collective action in not confined to the home.

Spatial structures discipline MDWs [migrant domestic workers] in Lebanon in two distinct ways: through the delineation of appropriate space within the employer’s house and through the restriction and surveillance of space outside the house. (390)

Many of these women receive incredibly limited time off–some none at all. But many are allowed to attend church, and church has become a real site for collective action for these women. Pande noted with surprise that many women don’t actually enter the service, but simply mingle outside with the other workers. It’s an incredible opportunity to organize and to help one another in a system that affords limited options to these women (they’re not, for instance, allowed to join unions). The pastor of their church preaches in practical ways that address issues of tolerance and personal safety as well as emphasizing workers’ rights and how to challenge employers who cross the line. Pande calls them “practical prayers.”

Balcony talks and church attendance also give some of these women access to another space: knowledge of apartments rented by and for women who run away. Much of the popular literature on migrant domestic workers in Lebanon focuses of the social isolation so many of them feel. Balconies are–as Pande argues–most commonly discussed as spaces where women jump to their death, feeling hopeless and with few other options. Yet Pande’s research also illustrates how they can be seen as more than this. It is through politicizing the very spaces they have been relegated to that these women have found ways of resisting on the micro-level. Whether or not this will transform the system is less certain–but it seems to have done some good for some women in incredibly difficult circumstances.

It’s also true that Pande was able to use these same strategic sites of resistance to study these women. Is her sample representative of all of the issues with which these women are dealing? Hard to say. Certainly she didn’t have access to the women who endure the most severe restrictions on their lives. But, it’s a fascinating and important (theoretically, methodologically, and practically) analysis of space.

–

Check out this issue here. I’m only writing about one of the articles here, but it’s a wonderful issue.

Fortunately, this is one thing that leftists seem to be condemning on a large scale.  I’ve never seen The View before (for good reason), but this clip gives a warm and fuzzy feeling:

Of course, “real woman” Roseanne Barr is the exception.  Mizz Barr, who is running for President of the United States as the Green Party candidate, claims that Cupp’s “hatred of women” (i.e. her opposition to the slaughter of unborn infants) is more disgusting than the fake image.

Now, the Obama campaign has released an ad that tries (but fails) to make the connection between success for women and government-funded birth control, all while sentimental piano music plays in the background and images of adorable little girls are shown.  But the ad is just ridiculous.  Almost as ridiculous as “Julia”; it tries to convince people that watch it that somehow electing Mitt Romney as president will prevent girls from being successful.  That premise is so self-evidently ludicrous that it is quite apparent that the Obama campaign is very desperate.

Katie Pavlich says:

There are many problems with this ad.

The first: The use of contraception is not controversial, forcing others, including religious institutions morally opposed to contraception, to cover and pay for contraception, is.

The second: Contraception is readily available at an inexpensive price pretty much everywhere.

The third: Have we really gotten to the point in America where young girls can only fullfil their dreams if someone else pays for their birth control? No, not even close. In fact, Forbes just named their 100 most powerful celebrities in the world. Four out of the top five celebrities were women and seven out of the top ten were women. Taxpayers weren’t paying for their birth control through a govenment mandate along their way to the top.

The fourth: The woman narrating the ad says, “We need a president who will stand up for women’s health and stay focused on jobs and the economy.” Let me remind readers that it was President Obama who decided to make birth control a “controversial” issue and a distraction from his horrific economic record when his ally Nancy Pelosi tapped 30-year-old reproductive activist Sandra Fluke [remember, it's pronounced "Fluck"] of Georgetown University to testify/complain before a congressional committee about paying $3000 a year for birth control.

…

The fifth: Team Obama is using recycled kid actors to push their agenda in a series of videos. For example, the little girl in the above video was also used in the video Team Obama put out about Planned Parenthood. She’s even wearing the same shirt!

…

The sixth: The birth control “controversy” isn’t about birth control at all, it’s about religious freedom and government forcing taxpayers to pay for birth control, despite moral and constitutional objections.

So ladies, do you find it impossible to reach your dreams because you have to pay for your own contraception? I didn’t think so. This ad is so patronizing to women that it’s nauseating, they really must think we are idiots.

I look forward to (not, actually) what non-sequiturs the Obama campaign will create out of nothing in the future.

Admittedly, I wouldn’t consider myself an “alpha-male.”  I wouldn’t consider myself a “beta-male” either.  I just don’t like putting myself into categories, especially since I don’t think I fit in either one.  But enough about me.  I think it is unfortunate that “beta-males” are becoming the norm.  And Bill Whittle’s associating conservatism to “alpha-males” and liberalism to “beta-males” is apt, but obviously it isn’t universally accurate.  Think about characteristics commonly associated with conservatism: common sense, simplicity, self-reliance, hard work, and a traditional worldview in general (which means, among other things, that men are expected to act like men).  Now think about characteristics commonly associated with liberalism: complex (and more often than not wrongheaded, in my opinion) theories, dependence on the government (i.e. support for the welfare state and entitlements), the idea that hard work is an unrealistic expectation of people (think labour unions), and a non-tradional worldview (which entails, among other things, thinking that men should be allowed to be openly emotional).

I think people should be allowed to behave however they want to, and society should react however it reacts.  But having strong (and non-sensitive) people is better for society overall, in my opinion.  In addition, I believe a less emotional, more rational society (which is a byproduct of strength and non-sensitivity, in my opinion) is beneficial.  Which is why I believe the culture should exemplify “alpha-male” types as preferable (and alpha-female too; why not?).

[Romney] says whatever should be said in front of that organization. He’s like the Forrest Gump of candidates. He was in Michigan. “I like cars. My wife has a car.” You know? He was in Wisconsin, “Had myself a grilled cheese sandwich today. That was nice.” I would love to see him in front of NOW. “Boy, women, boy I like women. You know, my wife has a vagina. I like that. I like that.”

Then there is Sarah Silverman, who used the c-word while comparing the Tea Party to the Westboro Baptist Church (of course):

The Tea Party really is just a c*nt hair away from being the Westboro Baptist Church.

That doesn’t sound like something Maya Angelou would say (although I could be wrong).  Anyway, “hair” (as opposed to “c*nt hair”) would have sufficed.  And of course, she doesn’t provide any rationale to back her assertion up.  I think it is safe to conclude that Sarah Silverman is just a pathetic Janeane Garofalo-wannabe.

And then there is this.

The current issue of Newsweek has a photo of President Obama with a rainbow-colored halo superimposed over his head and the title “The First Gay President.”

Nonsense. Obama is not the first gay president. He is the first female president.

Consider his activities on Monday: He sat down to tape a session with the ladies of ABC’s “The View” — his fourth appearance on the talk show by women and for (mostly) women. He accepted an award from Barnard College and gave thecommencement speech to graduates of the women’s school. Heck, he even appeared in public wearing a gown.

…

Monday’s activities veered into pandering, as Obama brazenly flaunted his feminine mystique.

From Twitchy:

Thanks to our media, we now know that President Obama is the first female president to ooze masculinity from his very pores.

What?

Now he’s the first woman to occupy the Oval Office? We can’t keep up with Obama’s shifting gender identities and orientations! Can Obama be all things to all people? Yes he can!

In a New York Times column, David Brooks calls Obama a post-feminist with “ESPN masculinity” and a “version of manliness that is postboomer in policy but preboomer in manners and reticence.”

I feel like I should say something… but I have nothing.  That is probably for the better.

The easiest way to say it is just to say it: There are grown men out there who devote themselves to the rainbow-unicorn-sparkly-pastel fantasy world of the children’s TV show “My Little Pony.” And, more appallingly, it’s not done ironically – they are proud of it.

They call themselves “bronies,” a terrifying hybrid of “bros” and “ponies.”

And the worst part:

“My Little Pony” inspires them to adopt brony names like Starfire Cuddlecakes and glue fake unicorn horns to their foreheads. Then go out in public.

Yes, it is terrifying that society has come to a point where grown men are not ridiculed to the point of unbearable shame (by everyone) for watching “My Little Pony” (among other things).  I imagine that some people celebrate this as a “beautiful expression of diversity and open-mindedness” or something; while things that should be celebrated, like hard work, self-reliance, and good decision making, are forgotten. How many futuristic dystopian novels predicted this?  I imagine none predicted this specific thing, but that is beside the point.  And before you call  this ridicule of “bronies” unreasonable, consider this:

All the while, as these pathetic sissies giggle like school girls over magic unicorns that spray rainbows from their horns, real men – and women – who have put aside the temptation to retreat into a frivolous fantasy world are tromping through the wilds of Afghanistan. Such young adults, some younger (in years) than the “bronies,” are protecting all of us – including these pathetic weirdoes.

It makes me want to wretch.

Yeah, some will say it’s unfair to compare a bunch of harmless fem-boys who stopped maturing at age seven with the heroic men and women facing death or dismemberment on all our behalves every day.  People who say that are wrong. These perma-virgins ought to be ashamed of themselves, but if they had the capacity for shame, this disgusting obsession would be a secret they guard almost as closely as a Harvard faculty member might guard the fact that he’s a registered Republican.

As sickening as it is, we can’t just ban grown men from acting like idiots because we disapprove of their lifestyle choices – after all, we aren’t progressives. It’s still a free country – coincidentally due entirely to the efforts of men and women who put aside childish things to contribute to society instead of feeding at the trough and then sitting on their expansive backsides as they eagerly clap like seals at the antics of colorful cartoon steeds.

In what horrible world is it considered “fair” that grown men who watch “My Little Pony” are considered equal to people who risked their lives to protect the freedom of grown men to watch “My Little Pony”? The answer to that is: the progressive “utopia.”  Yes, these “men” should have the freedom to obsess over a magical, sparkly cartoon world (which I imagine strongly resembles what a progressive “utopia” would look like, only without the famine and the death camps and prisons for dissenters); but they are far, far inferior to anyone who is willing to risk his or her life for what is right and good.

Now, I’m not the most masculine guy, and, as a boy, I preferred encyclopedias and atlases to toy trucks and toy guns.  But there is a limit to what a grown man should be interested in.  And if you are going to go ahead and watch “My Little Pony,” at least be discreet about it, and, for God’s sake, do not be proud of it.  It is not something to be proud of.

First, the “war on womyn” meme has not done what the Democrats hoped it would, mainly because women are more than their ovaries and are capable of critical thought.  Women do generally tend to be more liberal than men, but likely only a small minority of them are radical feminists.  It is funny how a “feminist” has evolved from an independent, successful career woman (if it ever was that) into the type of woman who marches around topless proclaiming herself to be a slut.  Anyway, as should be plainly obvious (but isn’t to liberal women for some reason), the “war on womyn” is nothing more than the same fearmongering that progressives resort to whenever someone points out how ridiculous their accusations of bigotry are.  It is the same thing as when a progressive accuses a conservative who opposes affirmative action or supports a strict immigration policy of being a racist or who opposes same sex marriage of being a homophobe.  The “war on womyn” meme is really just an accusation of mysogyny (which is also meant as a distraction from the important issues like the economy).  Reasonable opposition to enforced coverage of birth control is all conservatives are guilty of.  However, because of its self-evident absurdity, the “war on womyn” meme didn’t seem to keep itself alive outside of progressive circles.  And now, Hilary Rosen’s remarks (and other things) have completely flipped the target of the meme (it is funny how that seems to happen quite often, like when Rush Limbaugh’s “slut” remark, and the resulting onslaught, ended up rallying people around him).  It started when Rush’s alleged mysogynistic slur drew attention to the mysogyny of leftist pundits. And now professional victims/feminists like Hilary Rosen are adding to the controversy with their “war on stay at home moms” (and, before that, there was their “war on working moms” (the main target being Sarah Palin)).  It is becoming evident that nothing conservatives do will ever please these people (just like when conservatives are racist for opposing Obama, but then are also racist for supporting Herman Cain).

Speaking of racism, Obama’s remark about his son looking like Trayvon Martin was something else that has not served Democrats well.  To an objective observer, I would imagine his remark gives the impression of someone injecting themselves into something that they have no business being involved in, as well as someone who jumps to conclusions without knowing all the facts.  Personally, I am really not interested in the specifics of this case.  If George Zimmerman is, in fact, found to be guilty of second-degree murder, he is solely responsible for his actions.  They have no bearing on Florida’s “stand your ground” law, as he will be found to have violated it.  And his actions are certainly not a symptom of societal racism.  The unfortunate thing is that blacks are more likely to commit crimes, and I suspect that it is not because of their skin colour (or any genetic predisposition to commit crime), but is rather because of institutional racism on the part of corrupt Democrats and policies that have been destructive to inner-city families.

Rush Limbaugh and other conservatives are seemingly becoming increasingly adept at turning the left’s memes around and using those memes against them.  It seems the spirit of Andrew Breitbart lives on.

The president’s plan would decrease the incentive for rich people to invest in the company where you work, and potentially eliminate your job and increase the price of almost everything you buy.  Therefore, the president argued, the government is going to need the extra revenue from the Buffet rule to provide you with unemployment compensation, food stamps, housing vouchers, and Medicaid.

“The glass ceiling has been shattered,” said one advocate. “Now, even our transgender sisters have the opportunity to be objectified, leered at by men, and treated like a mindless piece of meat on global television.”  Meanwhile, Talackova said that if she wins the competition, it will prove conclusively that men are superior to women at everything, even better at being a beautiful woman.

(Sorry, I couldn’t figure out how to embed the video).

1. Stay-at-home fathers and breadwinning mothers: Gender, couple dynamics and social change.

2. Casual hookups to formal dates: Refining the boundaries of the sexual double standard.

3. Gender discrimination at work: Connecting gender stereotypes, institutional policies and gender composition of workplace.

4. Distancing as a gendered barrier: Understanding women scientists’ gender practices.

Free access to the articles until April 30.

Redwood Heights Elementary School in Oakland, CA has joined the chorus of those wishing to mainstream ‘gender-bending’ by enacting a program this week that, according to a press release, tells kindergarteners ‘there are more than two genders.’

The kindergarten through fifth grade school hosted a 2-day program for students titled, ‘Gender Spectrum Diversity Training,’ in which single-sex Hawaiian geckos and transgender clownfish were brought in to teach children that ‘there are different ways to be boys. There are different ways to be girls,’ according to Redwood Heights principal Sara Stone. Students received gender diversity training as they learned about ‘boy snakes that act ‘girly’.’

This is only the latest example of what seems to be a New-Age, gender-bending agenda pushed into the mainstream media by those who refuse to accept the traditional sex differences between men and women. A couple in Toronto, Canada has sparked outrage because they refuse to assign a specific gender to their infant ‘Storm,’ preferring instead to believe ‘a child’s sex should not determine his or her place in the world.

Firstly, I highly doubt kindergarten students understand what gender is.  If little boys act like girls sometimes, they are not self-conscious about it.  They don’t understand that what they are doing is “gender bending.”  Secondly, lizards and fish are not comparable to humans. There are numerous species that exhibit transsexuality (called hermaphroditism in biology).  For hermaphroditic species, either having both male and female sexual organs simultaneously or changing sexual organs at some point is common, if not universal.  Clownfish, unlike humans, are hermaphroditic (they are born male, but may become female).  Obviously, kindergarten students would not be able understand that, but deriving a “lesson” from a flawed comparison seems unethical to me.  That is not to mention everything else that is horribly wrong with indoctrinating children with this politically correct “gender bending” agenda.

A Toronto couple is taking their beliefs about parenting and gender stereotypes to new heights: They refuse to tell people the gender of 4-month-old Storm, reports the Toronto Star. Even the kid’s grandparents are in the dark. “In fact, in not telling the gender of my precious baby, I am saying to the world, ‘Please can you just let Storm discover for him/herself what s(he) wants to be?!”

I do believe that parents (not schools) should be able to raise their children how they want to, but this seems almost criminal.  This has to be some form of child abuse.

Militant progressivism has reached a new low.

I also use the term “homosexual” because it is the technical term.  Whether I, or anyone else, likes it or not, homosexuals are defined based on sexual preference.

In its original meaning, the word “queer” was a synonym of “strange.”  When applied to homosexuals, it was originally used as a pejorative.  Why on earth people would want to embrace a pejorative (especially when its use is superfluous) is beyond me (other than, perhaps, shock value).  Perhaps they use it as some sort of confirmation of victimhood (just a guess).  I think my opinion of this word can be best explained by Homer Simpson.  When a gay person uses the word “queer,” Homer responds thus: “I resent you people using that word.  That’s our word for making fun of you! We need it!”  Now, I am strongly opposed to political correctness.  However, the use of this word just doesn’t make sense to me.

Then there is LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender).  The issue I have with this term is that I believe it is over-inclusive.  I do not see why transgered people should be included, since transgenderism is not a sexual orientation.  There are several different versions of that term.  According to Wikipedia, there are also versions that include a Q, a question mark, a U, a C, an I, another T, a 2, an SA, an A and a P.  So, if all of those were included, the term would be LGBTQ?UCIT2SAAP.  Fortunately, I have never seen anyone use that term.  However, when you type in “LGBT” into google, its second suggestion is “LGBTTIQQ2SA.”  I believe that that is a bit too over-inclusive (to put it mildly).  I mean, homosexuals and bisexuals make up a small fraction of the population.  I can only imagine what percentage of the population is covered by the remainder of those various characters.

Now, enough on homosexuality.

Janice McCabe, the study’s lead author, examined approximately 6,000 children’s books published from 1900 to 2000. “Of those, 57 percent had a central male character compared with only 31 percent with female protagonists.” In addition, “at most one-third of children’s books published per year included central female characters that are adult women or female animals. But male animals or male adults appeared in 100 percent.”

For those of you who are avid readers of children’s literature, like myself, this is certainly not a revelation. I will be the first to admit that I grew up reading Clifford the Big Red Dog, Curious George and Winnie the Pooh, to name a few. What do they all have in common? Well, a quick survey shows that the protagonists in each are male. This in no way diminishes these books as classics in the canon of children’s literature but it does illustrate that a fundamental disparity exists.

In truth, whether they realize it or not, girls and young women long for female protagonists in the books they read. I know I did. Hermione Granger is one of the many reasons I adore the Harry Potter series. She is a brilliant, courageous and strong young woman. It’s incredibly empowering to have a female character that is not only equal to but also excels beyond her male counterparts. How often can you say that? Unfortunately, not often enough. And that, dear readers, is the problem.

Now more than ever girls and young women need protagonists that speak to them. Protagonists whose characteristics they can emulate. Hermione Granger‘s brilliance. Olivia the Pig‘s feistiness. Katniss Everdeen‘s strength.

The audience is waiting. It’s time to answer the call.

However, this is one dream most would like and are thrilled when it isn’t true, but then again, now their thinking of Monday already when its 4 pm a few hours before a Sunday night church service. The kiddies grabbing a hold of your legs and the husband or wife saying do this or do that. And we have to go here or there to buy this or that. Or you go to clean off the table in your ‘relax’ room or chair and realize there’s an electric bill that was due on Friday and now its Sun. soon to be Mon. Mundane as life can be we tread along one day at a time. But we continue to think of Monday even if it’s Friday evening an hour before getting off work.

Ok, I know what you’re thinking, you have off days in the middle of the week and your days to yourself are Sat. and Sun, right? So for all the weekend workers out there enjoy your Mondays and Tuesdays exploring the grocery store spending your last 50 dollars on 2 meals for the week. Yes, I said 2 meals; can you believe the cost of food today?! Just give me a can of peanuts, and maybe a piece of sushi for my birthday and I’m good to go. Oh, and as you stand in line with your last $50.00, there is always that one with their food stamp card buying $200.00 groceries getting ready to take them to the Cadillac.

Let me clear something up here though. If someone sincerely needs help due to health, injury or low wages then I am glad they can get help! If you are lying or manipulating the system to get help then you are dead wrong! It’s unfortunate though that the system is designed for you to be practically homeless before you can get help. How do I know this? I’ve been there, that’s how. On the other hand, I also feel it’s the responsibility of the Church to help as well. That’s part of being a good witness and reaching out to the community. Just don’t forget about your own! Reach out to the community yes, but, part of that community is the ones already attending ‘your’ church. I’m not talking about a particular race here, so don’t even get on to that ignorant discussion because you will lose with me my friend. Weeeew!! Ok…Had to count to ten there for a moment. Nah, not really, but I thought of it and so I wrote it. I’m kind of like a chicken without a head, wondering where my next step will be today or this week. I know no one has ever experienced that before! I’m just so unique and different. No, don’t go there either! I am no different than YOU! Well, maybe a little. I would hope so. God bless her soul for putting up with me. Oh hush; I know what you’re thinking!

Ok, for the ‘stay at homers’ out there too. I know you’re thinking, I work my tail end off and don’t even get paid! Yes, it’s the stay at ‘homers’ (my special word) careers that literally work 24/7. They are domestic engineers and the backbone of society. Interpret that as you may. I am saying thank you though. I have nothing against hard working men or women not in the home. But admire the ones that work it out to have a Mom in the home. What a blessing she is to the family and the children! And I must say you Moms are pretty unique and special for doing this or crazy! And look at it this way, you get to sleep in and work when you want!!! Lol If you’re a little ticked then ding.. ding.. ding.., I got ya!! I know that your work starts at 3am when the baby is crying and never lets up until________? Is there an end? Ok, so now you’re thinking, he’s a dude and how in the heck would he know what I’m going through as a stay at home Mom? Does it really matter if I know or not? I could be female and you may never know! HA! Got you thinking now? Its ok, you can think what you want. If you’re laughing or are in complete disgust or just slightly confused and/or ticked, then I’ve done my job with this no brained topic. Ha! I know… you’re thinking again!? This guy has lost his mind! I’m not without a brain…no, no, no….. I wasn’t talking about that. It’s ok though, I understand. Or do I?

Ok so I got off track there for a moment. Here is a cheery line for you! Life sucks and then you______. I know what you were thinking. Geese, quit accusing me of something I haven’t even wrote yet. But yea, life does ‘suck’ at times. And we all eventually die. If it hasn’t sucked for you yet, it will. If you’ve read any of my other blog entries, you’re thinking who in the heck is writing this one? Yep! Your right! It’s not me. It’s my alter ego that’s writing. The other guy needed some time off. Dang him though…he keeps whispering in my ear to talk about the night shift workers now. Oh my…..Ok, so to all the night shift workers. I will just say this. What is your story and do you like or hate night shift and why? Yes, I’ve worked nights before too. I get to dream while I’m awake on the job. What a great natural high. Yea, I loved nights! All the guru bosses and so called leaders of the pack were GONE! Hip hip horray! They don’t seem to do anything when they are around anyway! Wait a minute. I didn’t just say that, did I!? Yes I did. No I didn’t! Yes I did. Oh hush! Ok…..Moving on now. Oh you don’t want to move on do you? Ok, I’m just kidding, the leaders that don’t work nights are better than you. Oops..I didn’t say that either. Actually just take a deep breath because I’m just teasing, for now anyway. I might decide to get serious at some point today. Ok let’s change the subject a little now. We can pick up where I left off on this if your comments insist I do.

So yea, as I said in the Title, life can really suck at times, night shift can suck, starting work on a Monday sucks and yea, I guess all of that is rolled up in to one big suck-house my friend, but that’s the Hard Core Truth by RJ:http://www.hardcore-truth.com If you’re a little bewildered and not sure what to think, don’t worry it will be ok, it takes a crazy person to read this. So if you’ve gotten this far then your as nutty as me. Ha, Ha, Ha. And I do mean that! No I don’t. Well, maybe a little. Oh who cares! I know what you’re thinking because you’re still reading on and got to this part. Ha Ha, you are as crazy as me because you just passed crazy to crazier. I know, you want to see how this craziness ends so just hang in there as we travel the yellow brick road further.

Let’s just change the pace for a moment. I have written all of the above to just get your brain thinking about several of the challenges we face each and everyday. Most of what I wrote above was in a dry comedic way of the realities of the working dads and moms and stay at home workers as well. We tread along each day, each hour, each minute, wondering what is going to smack us silly again. And yea, life sucking does get old, but it’s LIFE! Sure, I could go on and on with this. However, I want to make an important point here. As we go through life each and everyday were thinking gosh I’m whipped or gosh, I just don’t know how much of this I can do anymore! Yes, everyone burns out on any type of job. Even if it’s something they love. So, how do we avoid burnout? How do we stay sane? That’s a tough question and can be answered in many different ways. I will give you my perspective since I’m the one writing right now. Life just plain sucks sometimes and there is nothing you can really do about it. However, there is one thing you can do to keep you and sustain you when going through all these mixed emotions that everyone has. If you’re reading this and think its not you or will never happen to you then don’t blink too slow because you are in for a surprise.

This is the hardcore truth by R.J. here. Any normal person is going to get a little pissy when it comes to you don’t know what I’ve been through! You’re right, I don’t. But the solution to trials and tribulations is close to the same for everyone. First, acknowledge your weaknesses. Accept your situation for now anyway. Realize who can hold you up and sustain you during these difficult times. (I’ll touch on that in a minute) Then you must make a DECISION. You can choose to stay where you’re at or choose to move on. For each individual this process will be different in the timing of it. But the process itself is close to the same for anyone.

First points to remember in order: 1.) Acknowledge 2.) Accept 3.) Understand your feelings 4.) Change what you can, and 5.) Accept what you can’t. After you have done all this then you will know how to pray. That is if you do. Now the God I know already teaches us how to pray in His Word. But, unless you can do these other things as well, you will have a hard time praying and meaning what you pray. Why? Because the answer we want is not always what we get, hence the 5 steps above. Some may say pray first. Yes, you can do that and I won’t say it’s wrong. But at some point you still have to apply those 5 steps. Now at times in our lives we feel like nobody can possibly relate to what we are saying or feeling and that is true. So if someone says they can, then they are wrong, saying it as nicely as I can on the http://www.hardcore-truth.com However, that doesn’t mean we don’t need some type of a support group and if Church is not your thing then at least realize the possibility of a power greater than yourself. Anyone that has read anything of mine already knows about my spiritual beliefs. But this isn’t a particular topic I am going to be speaking much about. Actually, I will in a minute. Ok, off of that. Actually, let me just comment on this one particular issue. I almost forgot! This is the hardcore truth by RJ and you can read more here: http://www.hardcore-truth.com If anyone can run around thinking that they are their own little god’s then have at it. But for me and my household we will always stay strong knowing that in our weakest moments when we feel like we just can’t go on, it’s then that He carries us. I am grateful for that.

Symposium

Law, Gender & Citizenship:

Contemporary Issues for American Indians and American Immigrants

March 5, 2010

Pyle Center  •  702 Langdon Street  •  University of Wisconsin-Madison

Tentative Schedule; Subject to Change

4 hours CLE applied for; $60 in advance; $75 at the door • Online Registration Available Soon

8:30-8:45 Welcome

Hon. Amanda Rockman (Ho-Chunk)

Trial Court of the Ho-Chunk Nation

8:45-9:00 Introduction

Dan Lewerenz (Iowa Tribe of Kansas & Nebraska)

Symposium Editor, Wisconsin Journal of Law, Gender & Society

9:00-9:50 The Indian Child Welfare Act and Same-Sex Couples: Whose Law Governs When a State Allows Adoption by Same-Sex Couples and a Tribe’s Does Not, and Vice Versa?

Steve Sanders

Associate, Mayer Brown LLP; 2010 Visiting Professor, University of Michigan Law School

9:50-10:00 Break

10:00-10:50 Federal Reservations: Sexual Violence Against Native American Women and the Denial of Reproductive Healthcare Services

Rebecca Hart

Legal Fellow, Center for Reproductive Rights

10:50-11:40 Shared Experiences, Divergent Outcomes: American Indian and Undocumented Immigrant Victims of Domestic Violence

Jacqueline Hand and David Koelsch

Professor and Assistant Professor, University of Detroit Mercy Law School

11:40-12:30 Lunch

12:30-1:15   Keynote Address

Diane Humetewa (Hopi)

Of Counsel, Squire Sanders; former U.S. Attorney for the District of Arizona

1:15-2:05 287(g) and Women: The Family Values of Local Enforcement of Federal Immigration Law

Ajmel A. Quereshi

Skadden Fellow and Director, ACLU of Maryland Immigrants Rights Project

2:05-2:15 Break

2:15-3:05 Gender, Migration and Law: Unexpected Effects on the Most Vulnerable Immigrants

Carla L. Reyes

Public Interest Fellow, Volunteer Advocates for Immigrant Justice

3:05-3:15 Closing Remarks

Kate Frigo

Deputy Symposium Editor, Wisconsin Journal of Law, Gender & Society

For more information, contact Symposium Editor Dan Lewerenz at WJLGS.Symposium@gmail.com