Meme: "The United States will not let men steal trophies from women"

 A Leftist FB friend posted this bit of idiocy:

The simple and obvious response is that María Corina Machado gave her peace prize to President Trump to honor him. 

In addition, men completing in women's sports for championships and trophies has been happening at the behest of Leftists. This obviously denies women a fair playing field. This is the point of President Trump's quoted remark. 

Leftists approve of these men stealing trophies. Swimmer Lia Thomas:

Weight lifter Avi Silverberg:

Hypocrisy of Religious People Regarding Women - By Bob Johnson

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-------------------------

Mr. Johnson has appeared in our blog several times. Invariably he writes critically about religion, with particular emphasis on Christianity. His underlying agenda is to push his never-explained deism.

We have found him to be a less than rigorous thinker. Though not an atheist, he might as well be, since his rhetoric conforms particularly well to atheism. Further, he largely contents himself with spurting regurgitated atheist and/or leftist talking points. 

Ironically, he relies on the morality of "revealed religions" to make his pronouncements. So there is a code of right and wrong with him, from which he derives moral imperatives which he happily desires to impose on others. However, he is unable, or unwilling, to explain why his moral pronouncements are self-evident, or why we would want to adopt them for ourselves.

That is, he engages in the very same moralizing he opposes in religious people. That would be hypocrisy, sir.

Today he asserts that religious people are hypocrites regarding women. Oddly, he will never discuss or identify any hypocrisy. We think he meant to use the word "misogyny" rather than "hypocrisy." This can easily happen with leftists because they continually recycle talking points, slogans, and buzzwords. He probably forgot which talking point he was using.

----------------------

Abortion Involves Killing–and That’s OK! By Sophie Lewis

Found here. Our comments in bold.

----------------

This rather astonishing presentation is full of twisted logic, euphemisms, and false equivalencies, coupled with moral posturing and false premises.

The author wants to shift the way pro-choicers express their arguments buy suggesting they concede that something is actually dying. However, she will do her level best to de-humanize the unborn baby by refusing to call it a baby. In addition, she will frequently refer to pregnancy as gestation, and pregnant mothers as gestators. These terms are designed to separate out the emotional aspect of pregnancy and birth, which neutralizes any attachment to the baby.

One might think the author is talking about the movie Alien and not unborn babies.

Despite the author's "concession," nothing would really change in the rhetoric. Which mean the logical and moral inconsistencies of the pro-choice position remain.

-----------------

You can thank Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg...

Found on FB:

Transcript:

Women, if you have a credit card in your own name and your own credit history, if you have leased an apartment or bought property in your name, if you have consented to your own medical treatment, if you played a sport in school, you can thank Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

***

Whose job is it to keep mama happy? - by Dalrock

Found here. A Very good article.

We can no longer ignore that voice within women that says: ‘I want something more than my husband and my children and my home.’

–Betty Friedan, The Feminine Mystique

Women are especially prone to falling into discontentment and disrupting the lives of everyone around them when they do.  The Book of Proverbs warns repeatedly of this tendency:

• Proverbs 21-9 (ISV):  It’s better to live in a corner on the roof than to share a house with a contentious woman.
• Proverbs 21-19 (KJV):  It is better to dwell in the wilderness, than with a contentious and an angry woman.
• Proverbs 25-24 (ISV):  It’s better to live in a corner on the roof than in a house with a contentious woman.
• Proverbs 27-15 (NKJV):  A continual dripping on a very rainy day And a contentious woman are alike;
• Proverbs 14:1 (NIV):  The wise woman builds her house, but with her own hands the foolish one tears hers down.

Betty Friedan called this tendency of women toward discontentment “the problem that has no name” in her 1963 book The Feminine Mystique.  The book is commonly credited with identifying the problem (the mysterious discontentment of women) and thereby kicking off second wave feminism.

#IAmSexist It’s time that we men take responsibility for our role in the problem of violence against women. By George Yancy

Found here. My comments in bold.
-----------------

Being a good little leftist, this guy is desperately virtue-signaling as he tries to insulate himself from the backlash of hysterical feminists who are coming for him. 

But it won't be enough, because it's never enough. He's guilty simply by being a white male, and nothing, literally nothing, can atone for that sin. 

His apology is simply blood in the water, furthering the white hot rage.)
---------------------

Men, listen up.

In light of a year of disturbing revelations from the #MeToo movement and from last month’s profoundly troubling Brett Kavanaugh hearings and his eventual confirmation to the Supreme Court, it is time that we, men, act. (Apparently, women are not strong, they are helpless. And it's men's job to rescue them.)

Certainly, some of us men have spoken out on behalf of women. But many more of us have remained silent. Some have kept silent out of fear of being judged, (Fear.) 

fear of criticism or censure, (Fear.)

others out of genuine respect. (Fear.)

In fact, silence (Actually, fear.)

has become the default stance of many men who consider themselves “allies” of women. But given all that has transpired, staying out of it is no longer enough. (It never has been enough. All the supplication in the world isn't enough. He's just making them even madder.

The issue has evolved to the point that anything other than full-throated support of the leftist agenda is deemed to be opposition.)

I’ve decided not to cut corners. So, join me, with due diligence and civic duty, (And fear.)

and publicly claim: I am sexist! (But I am afraid.)

In fact, perhaps it is time that we lay claim to a movement — #IamSexist. (A movement? A movement of corporate guilt, designed to kowtow to hysterical people who are insatiable in their lust for power? That's going to be a real seller.)

Think about its national and international implications as we take responsibility for our sexism, our misogyny, our patriarchy. (Corporate guilt where none exists. The author is mistaken if the symbolism is going to be accepted as substantive.)

It is hard to admit we are sexist. I, for instance, would like to think that I possess genuine feminist bona fides, but who am I kidding? (Exactly. His feminist credentials are insufficient to insulate him from the coming wrath. It's only a matter of time before he makes some innocent comment or gesture that triggers an emotionally weaponized woman. 

It won't matter that he did nothing wrong then, because it doesn't matter right now. When an individual is vested with the power to decide on a per-case basis who is an offender and who is making an acceptable gesture, one is at the mercy of the whims of someone else's feelings. There is no possibility of avoiding violation.)

I am a failed and broken feminist. (He already knows it. The problem is, it will never change. No matter how he signals his virtues, no matter how impressive his feminist credentials, there will come a day when none of it matters. He's living in fear right now, because he knows the unilateral power these women wield.)

A woman has a right to her own body - FB conversaton

Rod  shared The Conservative Millennial's video.

Yesterday at 3:20am · 

-2:14

Amelia  I just love how everyone and their effing brother point out every bad thing about planned parenthood and none of the good. Come with both sides not just the negative. Pph also promotes safe sex as well as exams to those who couldn't afford it otherwise. When they shut them down in the mid west they had HIV epidemics within a year. If folks want to focus on the bad then youve got to look at all medical facilities as well because pph isn't the only facility that performs abortions and that's not the only thing they do.

The Christian Doctor Fighting for a Woman’s Right to Choose - BY DR. WILLIE PARKER

Found here. My comments in bold.
----------------------------------

It should be clear to anyone considering this article that it is going to be an effort to burnish the credentials of this doctor for the purpose of justifying abortion, while wrapping it up with a "Christian" label. 

But of course there is nothing Christian about it. He doesn't discuss his faith at all, he doesn't quote any Scripture, he really seems to avoid the issues of his supposed Christianity.

We must conclude, therefore, that his Christianity is a rhetorical excuse designed to give cover for his horrific occupation.

****Update**** It's easy to claim Christianity for his cover, but I wonder now what he will claim in light of sexual misconduct allegations.
----------------------------------

Trying to Think through the Logic of Abortion Rights - Justin Taylor

Found here.  A very good thought experiment.
-------------------

The logic of the landmark abortion ruling Roe v. Wade was that ignorance about when human life begins entails that the government not impose restrictions upon abortion practice.

If you go back to August 16, 2008, Rick Warren asked presidential candidate Barack Obama when a fetus gets human rights, and Mr. Obama (who opposes any abortion restrictions for any reason, in line with Roe v. Wade) famously responded that the answer was “above his pay grade.”

Reworking Malachi 2:16 for our feminist era (part 2) - by Dalrock

Found here.

-----------------

In part one of this series I explained how Malachi 2:16 is being reworked from a condemnation of divorce theft to justification for divorce theft. Thus Joel and Kathy Davisson have changed the meaning of “God hates divorce” to God hates men who can’t keep their wives happy (all emphasis in this post is mine):

Men, obey the Word: Quit dealing treacherously with your wives. Why? Because if you don’t, you are going to end up divorced and God hates divorce. We are not going to applaud you as a great man of God anymore if you cannot keep one little wife happy.

Treachery is expansively defined here to mean anything that displeases a wife. A husband’s role in this new definition of Christian marriage is to follow the instruction of his wife on how to be married, since God has provided wives with all of the knowledge when it comes to marriage. Joel and Kathy explain this in their book The Man of Her Dreams The Woman of His!

God has equipped every woman with a marriage manual in her heart, designed to instruct her husband in how to meet her unique needs.
…
It is very simple. When your wife’s marriage manual points out that you have violated her in some way, your job is to hear her heart and accept what it is that your personal marriage manual is saying to you. Your wife may not have a clue as to how to handle the household checkbook. She may not have a clue as how to run a lawnmower. What she does have is that unique marriage manual in her heart for your marriage which is given to her from God. The way that a man becomes the man that God has called him to be is to become the husband his wife needs him to be. The only way to become the husband our wife needs us to be is to read our personal marriage manual. How do read that marriage manual? We listen to her heart.

While Joel and Kathy are probably the most over the top in how they present this new view of Christian marriage, what they are teaching is the mainstream conservative Christian view of marriage. I promised in the first post to include another example of this in part two, and the example I’ll share is from Pastor Sam Powell in his post God Hates Divorce, part two (see part one here).

Pastor Powell is a bit more circumspect, but he is selling the same message as Joel and Kathy. If a wife is unhappy in her marriage, it is evidence that her husband is hateful and treacherous to her. Powell explains that God created Adam and Eve to have a perfect marriage, but because men are sinful they hate their wives and treat them treacherously. Powell claims that instead of hating divorce, God is saying men need to make their wives happy or they deserve to end up divorced:

…sin entered the world and men became treacherous, violating that harmony, hating their wives and oppressing them, rather than loving them. This should not be, especially among God’s people.

And now we get to verse 16 and see that it makes perfect sense. If you hate her that much, set her free! Be open with it. You put on one front but behind closed doors you are something else entirely. Clothe yourself with the violence that defines your life and set your wife free!

So is God condoning divorce? No. That isn’t really the point of the passage. The point is the last part of the verse: “therefore take heed to your spirit, that ye deal not treacherously.”

…He hates lying and deceit. He hates the proud, treacherous heart. He hates the entitlement mentality that says “I am; and there is none like me!” God hates the hatred that a man has for his wife, causing him to rail at her, to oppress her, to take a mistress or another wife. He hates the disharmony that wicked men cause in their home.

If you insist on treating your wife like this, set her free. It will be the only decent thing you’ve ever done.

What would be far better, though, is if you took heed to your spirit and quit treating her this way. If you refuse to do that, don’t think that God doesn’t hear the voice of your wife pouring out her tears on the altar. God hears that, and will not allow those tears to go unanswered.

Why isn’t God hearing your prayers? Why doesn’t he accept your sacrifices? Because of how you treat your wife.

If you hate her that much, set her free.

Pastor Powell then anticipates the objection to his claim that marriage vows are conditional on the wife’s happiness:

But then, you say, how will we keep our wives from leaving us? First, I have to say to you that if force and intimidation are the only tools in your arsenal to keep your marriage, then you need to reevaluate your existence as a human being.

Instead of asking that question, ask instead, “How can I make my wife WANT to stay married to me?”

Paul answers this in Ephesians 5. Love your wives, as Christ loved the church.

This is the same message as the one I quoted at the top of the post from Joel and Kathy. Make your wife happy or God says you will deserve it when she divorces you. This is likewise built on the claim that a wife will be happy if her husband loves her. Powell repeats this claim that a wife who is loved will be happy frequently in his writings on marriage. In Headship is not Hierarchy Powell writes:

…you can see a woman who is loved by her husband. She is alive, fully human, confident, and joyfully doing whatever work God has called her to with spirit and life.

Note that you could easily reword this into the language that Joel and Kathy use; the wife is a responder.

Powell explains this in more detail in his post To the Newly Married. The key to a Christian marriage, he tells us, is for the husband to learn how to make his wife happy:

This is where it gets endlessly wonderful. Women are fascinating creatures; each one created just a little different. They are almost like a puzzle to be solved… If you want a blessed and beneficial marriage, learn how to make your wife exult. What makes her tick? What does she fear? What does she dream of?

…Guys, do away with the jokes about not understanding women. You are commanded to do just that. But to do that you have to put off your own self-absorption, and figure out how to listen. Listen with your ears, with your eyes, even with your finger-tips. She’ll let you know what causes her to exult, but you have to tune in.

…Don’t try to learn about your wife from stereotypes, books (especially of the “women’s place is in the home” variety) or locker room gossip. This is your wife you are learning about and she is the only one who can show you what causes her to exult. You are on a wonderful journey of discovery together.

As Joel and Kathy say, every wife has a marriage manual written in her heart, from God.

Powell closes his advice to newly married couples by explaining that if their marriage ever becomes “stagnant”, this is a sign that the husband isn’t loving his wife enough and isn’t listening to the marriage manual in her heart. He needs to repent and learn to make her happy before she decides to divorce him:

If you have been married for a while and find your love growing stagnant, it is probably because you didn’t heed God’s command. Repent and ask your wife’s forgiveness for failing to understand her. Then start your year now. Turn the TV off. Give up boys’ nights out, and learn how to cause your wife to rejoice. It may not be too late.

Reworking Malachi 2:16 for our feminist era (part 1) - by Dalrock

Found here. An important article about divorce.

------------------

I’ve written previously about the modern Christian cross-dressing view of marriage, where wives are in absolute headship and regularly need to give their husbands wakeup calls to establish their authority. While wives punishing disobedient husbands is a universal modern Christian fetish, there is a divergence of opinion on which method wives should use to make their husbands submit. Some favor smashing household items in an insane rage. Others favor denial of sex to control husbands, and some even go so far as to teach that God speaks to husbands through their wives vaginas.

While the above methods are (modern) Christian favorites, secular culture tends to instead prefer threats of divorce, or actual divorce, so that the family courts become the method of punishment. Economists Stevenson and Wolfers explain how the new marriage model facilitates the feminist agenda in their paper Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law: Divorce Laws and Family Distress (emphasis mine):

"The first act of violence that patriarchy demands of males..."

Another FB meme.




Text: "The first act of violence that patriarchy demands of males is not violence toward women. Instead patriarchy demands of all males that they engage in acts of psychic self-mutilation, that they kill off the emotional parts of themselves. If an individual is not successful in emotionally crippling himself, he can count on patriarchal men to enact rituals of power that will assault his self-esteem." ~ Bell Hooks Because men need feminism too.

This meme is built on several undocumented premises:

• There are conformity demands uniquely made on males
• Those demands are from a patriarchy
• They are violent demands
• These demands precede demands to be violent to women 

From these premises come false conclusions:

• Patriarchal men will enforce these demands 
• Males are forced to engage in self damage
• This self damage kills the emotions
• Self damaging of the emotions is bad
• Non compliance invites patriarchal men to enforce their will

Why Don't More Churches Ask Women to Lead? 1 in 5 women feel under-utilized in the church. - by Amy R. Buckley

Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
----------------------

The author's thinking appears to be unduly colored by feminist ideology. In fact, every article on her website is about oppressed women, abused women, and women who have broke free of the patriarchy. 

I should say going in that I favor women deaconesses, because the Bible talks about them. Thus, this is not written as an anti-woman-leader piece. I am more interested in the failures of the author's thinking processes.
--------------------

The property rights argument regarding abortion

Abortion supporters frequently appeal to their right to control their own bodies. This is in essence a property rights argument. We certainly can agree that it is a fundamental property rights issue as to who owns our bodies. In a free society, government has no say in what we legally do with our own property, including our bodies, as a matter of unalienable rights.

However, these rights are not absolute.

Fake Pregnancy Centers Will Say Some Ridiculous Things To Trick Women Away From Abortion- BY ALEX ZIELINSKI

Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
----------------------------

The Left is on a never-ending quest to stifle dissent and quash intellectual diversity. Basically, they can't stand someone having another opinion. Thus, anyone who deigns to utter even the slightest divergence from the leftist Handbook of Approved Ideas will be subject to merciless sanction.

Notice even the title of the article is suggestive of this. "Fake pregnancy centers" means that these facilities aren't about pregnant women. But actually, they are about helping women keep their baby and not kill it. Now certainly a pro-choicer would object to the idea that a pregnancy center would actually be about continuing the pregnancy, but by virtue of not being in favor of abortion, they conclude these centers are fake.
-----------------------

Co-op considers shelving products over birth-control coverage issue - By LAURA LUNDQUIST

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

------------------------

(It's truly odd how the Left picks and chooses its criteria for that which it supports or rejects. The very same reasons they do one thing do not apply to another if the other is something they despise. 

Example: The Left's defense of ACA is, it's "the law of the land." Roe V. Wade is the "law of the land." Gay marriage is "settled law." Yet the Bozeman Food Co-op is preparing to reject products that are made by companies who don't provide birth control to their employees, even though the matter is settled law. 

Apparently the Left is all-in on believing their own rhetoric. They actually think that a business that declines to pay for something for you is violating your rights, a patently nonsensical assertion that has the rest of us laughing at their absurdity. It is one of those strategies from their well-worn Playbook Of Slogans: Redefine, lather, then repeat. 

Here, the co-op wants to jump in on the culture wars, which has claimed many a participant. No business wins when they take sides and risk alienating 50% of their customer base. 

But the worst part is that it would never occur to the co-op to encourage their members to pay for those workers who lack contraceptive coverage themselves. No, it never works that way. The Left is perpetually interested in making sure other people pay their "fair share," but never include themselves. Other people must be forced to extend compassion, but they never get out their own checkbooks. They insist on choice, but deny it to those with whom they disagree.

On the other hand, the free market speaks. They are looking at a free market decision to end a voluntary, private, arrangement and direct their purchasing dollars elsewhere. I fully support this capitalistic activity. I shall also engage in similar free association and make sure my purchasing dollars never end up in their cash registers.

------------------------

The Bozeman Food Co-op is weighing a proposal to eliminate a line of food products because the manufacturer refused to provide its workers with birth-control coverage.

At a July Food Co-op board meeting, board members heard from several member-owners who questioned whether the Co-op should continue to stock products distributed by Eden Foods, a Michigan-based organic-food company.

Michael Potter, the sole owner of Eden Foods, is a devout Catholic who is opposed to providing his employees with health care insurance that covers birth control.

Some Food Co-op member-owners said Eden Foods was infringing on its employees’ human rights.

The Co-op defines its values as “self-help, self-responsibility, democracy, equality, equity, and solidarity,” and some memberowners argued that supporting Eden Foods went against those values because it made the Co-op complicit in denying coverage for birth control to those who want it.

The Co-op board decided to put the issue out to its 15,000 member-owners for a two week comment period that ended Wednesday night.

Co-op spokeswoman Alison Grey Germain said she had yet to process the comments, but the issue had received a lot of feedback, both for and against.

“The Co-op does not have an opinion on this issue,” Grey Germain said. “In general, the Co-op always welcomes input from our member-owners on any issues or concerns they may have. The comment period is just that; a comment period.”

Grey Germain said it could take one to two months before the board considers any action.

At least one customer has jumped to the conclusion that the Coop’s consideration of the issue amounts to religious discrimination.

General manager Kelly Wiseman said the Bozeman Food Co-op was a cooperative, not a nonprofit organization, so it listens to its cooperative members.

“This kind of control over the product is 100 percent the decision of the members. This is one of the things that make a Co-op fun and interesting,” Wiseman said.

Valerie O’Connell, who said she represents the Glastonbury Landowners, which is aligned with the Church Universal Triumphant near Emigrant, said she’d encourage her group to boycott the Co-op if they eliminate Eden Foods. She said she had also contacted the Montana Family Foundation.

The Montana Family Foundation is a nonprofit religious organization that has lobbied against abortion and gay rights and for taxpayer funding of charter schools.

“We tolerate all religions. So for us to hear about this reverse discrimination after the Hobby Lobby decision, we’re just appalled,” O’Connell said. “They’re serving the public and they shouldn’t take sides. They’re taking a stance against religion.”

When the Affordable Health Care Act mandated coverage for birth control, Eden Foods joined about 70 other companies that insisted they should be able to opt out of contraceptive coverage for religious reasons. In March 2013, Eden Foods sued the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. In October, an appeals court ruled that a corporation, unlike a person, could not exercise religion.

But in June, the Supreme Court — following the precedent set by the Citizens United ruling that corporations are people — ruled in a split decision that small companies could object to birth control on religious grounds.

The Supreme Court ordered lower courts to apply the ruling to previous cases, including that of Eden Foods.

The Supreme Court ruling was narrow, but in her dissent, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued that it opened the door for business owners with wideranging religious beliefs to deny employees coverage for almost anything on religious grounds.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Male Justices Didn’t Really Understand Hobby Lobby - by Matt Wilstein

Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.

--------------------------

I think Ginsberg's criticism of her fellow justices is very unseemly. I can't recall a time where a sitting Supreme court justice has accused fellow Supreme court justices of ignorance. Read on:
--------------------------

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg became an even bigger hero on the left last month when she delivered a scathing dissent to the 5-4 decision in favor of Hobby Lobby, which is now exempt from providing (No, it was forced to provide) certain types of birth control to its employees based on its founder’s religious beliefs. This week, she sat down for an extended interview with Yahoo News’ Katie Couric to explain why she found the decision so damaging.

“Contraceptive protection is something that every woman must have access to in order to control her own destiny,” Ginsburg told Couric. (Really? Women can't control their own destiny without birth control? Does that mean when a person becomes a parent their rights have been violated because they have an obligation to care for their child? And since when has the concept of controlling one's destiny been a legal precept?

Further, why does she think the law should value "access," as in a method to obtain certain services or products? And how does declining to support something on moral grounds have anything to do with access? Do women who work for Hobby Lobby no longer have the ability to drive to a pharmacy and purchase birth control? Maybe they don't have a car. Wouldn't that be denying access to birth control as well?)

While she said she “respects the belief” of the Hobby Lobby owners, (Which means she doesn't.) she added, “they have no constitutional right to force that belief on the hundreds and hundreds of women who work them who don’t share that belief.” (Which means that in her view the interests of women to get birth control that is paid by their employer exceeds the interests of the employer to decline to pay for it as the owners pursue their religious convictions. 

Notice that Ginsberg asserts there is no "constitutional right to force that belief," a truly ignorant statement. First, there is no such thing as a "constitutional right," because rights are not created by the Constitution. There is nothing in the Constitution that grants powers or makes restrictions on anyone except government.

Second, no religious belief is being forced per se. Hobby Lobby's specific reason is that some contraceptives have the effect of being an abortifacient, and scientifically speaking, ends a genetically human life. This is not a religious belief. But since the case was argued and decided based on religious freedom, "Congress shall make no law..." is definitive. Congress made a law that not only violated the Constitution, it violated the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Third, religion isn't being imposed. Government was being imposed, and the ruling reflected the fact that government policy was forcing private entities to do things.)

“Do you believe that the five male justices truly understood the ramifications of their decision?” Couric asked later in the interview of the men who made up the majority.

“I would have to say no,” Ginsburg replied after a pause. “But, justices continue to think, and can change. So I’m ever hopeful that if the Court has a blind spot today, its eyes can be opened tomorrow.” (So these justices are blinded by something. What would that be, Justice Ginsberg? They're not thinking, hmmm? Really? What an astounding claim! The fact that the majority is not on board with the feminist agenda is apparently sufficient cause to cast doubt on the intellectual skills of these justices.) Asked if she believes those five justices had a blind spot when it came to Hobby Lobby, Ginsburg said, “Yes.”

Time for authoritative men to stop dictating to women - letter by Carol Stahl

Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
--------------------------

Ms. Stahl makes the most egregiously fascist (I don't mean political fascism) statements I have ever read from a Leftist. Amazingly, she comes out and directly says what every Leftist secretly believes but will violently deny when confronted. 

If you can contain your astonishment, read the entirety of her letter below.
------------------------ 

Women and girls are persons. “Persons cannot rightly be forced to make their bodies available as incubators to unwanted nonpersons for nine months, especially considering the physical dangers, emotional trauma, and drastic life-changes pregnancy entails” teaches bioethics professor Andrew Johnson of Missouri State U. (The first step towards fascism is to deny personhood, that is, to establish distinctions between the value of certain kinds of human life. Personhood is a legal status, not an ethical one. 

Here we have a "bioethics professor" inventing a hierarchy of values favoring the mother over her unborn child, a framework which raises the mother's interests and diminish the child's.

Implicit in this denial of personhood is that one party is enabled to make decisions detrimental to the other without consideration of that party's interests. Interestingly, the "bioethics professor" essentially argues against pregnancy itself as dangerous and detrimental, rather than in favor of abortion.)  

Zygotes, embryos and fetuses are not persons. (As soon as one can define away someone's personhood, they become property which can be disposed of at will, which is what happened to black slaves and the Jews in Germany.) 

Montana’s only congressman Daines pushes an immoral, unethical lie by introducing “personhood legislation” that equates zygotes, embryos and fetuses with women. (Notice the use of terms like "immoral" and "unethical." Ms. Stahl is happy to pass judgment on Daines by imposing her morality on him. On what basis should her morality prevail is left unexplained.)

Not all humans are persons. (A tacit admission that fetuses are human.) Braindead people sustained by life support are a tragic example. (Which means that anyone not conforming to Ms. Stahl's definition of personhood can be killed without reservation or moral problem. The emotional well being of others takes priority. 

The interests of the State most certainly can weigh in on its interests as well. "Non persons" are expensive and do not generate revenue.) 

Intelligence, autonomy, self-awareness, emotion, future-regarding intentions and moral responsibility are characteristics of persons. These characteristics are not present in human zygotes, embryos or fetuses. (We can on this basis speculate regarding who else might be deemed non-persons. Those affected with Downs Syndrome or autism. An infant or child up to the age of perhaps 3 years. Any individual with an I.Q. of less than, say, 80. A person deemed stupid because of political persuasion or religious belief. The elderly if they require substantial assistance because they lack "autonomy." 

Ms. Stahl would have to explain to use why her rules for personhood would be excepted in any of these cases, and also, who gets to decide their personhood.)   

Women’s reproductive health has been a subject fascinating to authoritarian men since the beginning of time. The bizarre theories men propose are contrary to women’s experience and intelligence. Daines’s insulting “personhood legislation” is as much a waste as was his vote to spend billions of taxpayer dollars to shut down our government. (The legislation says this: "The terms 'human person' and 'human being' include each and every member of the species homo sapiens at all stages of life, including the moment of fertilization, cloning, or other moment at which an individual member of the human species comes into being." There is nothing particularly noteworthy here, certainly nothing insulting to women. It simply changes the definition of personhood to conform with medical knowledge about when life begins. It rejects the notion that human beings must be capable of a a particular level of cognitive or physical ability in order to be considered persons.)

It’s time authoritarian men give up attempting to dictate women’s reproductive choices. If men got pregnant, birth control would be marketed as relentlessly as Viagra.

Carol Stahl



Bozeman

My 'Naked' Truth - Robin Korth

Found here. Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
------------------------------

A FB friend I deeply respect posted this, expressing her admiration for its poignancy and power. The thing is, my friend is a Christian, a discerning one at that, but seemed to miss the fact that the author of the article was a divorcee bedding men she had just met online. 

I have included the FB conversation below the article. Read on:
------------------------------

Naked, I stood at the closet doors with the lights on and made myself ready. I took a deep breath and positioned the mirrors so I could see all of me. I consciously worked to remove my self-believed inner image. I opened my eyes and looked very carefully at my body. And my heart lurched at the truth: I am not a young woman anymore. I am a woman well-lived. My body tells of all the years she has carried my spirit through life.

I am a 59-year-old woman in great health and in good physical shape. I stand five-feet, nine-inches tall and weigh 135 pounds. I wear a size six in both jeans and panties, and my breasts are nowhere near my navel. In fact, they still struggle to make it full-up in a B-cup bra. My thighs are no longer velvet and my buttocks have dimples. My upper arms wobble a bit and my skin shows the marks of the sun. There is a softness around my waist that is no longer perfectly taut, and the pout of my abdomen attests to a c-section that took its bikini flatness -- but gave me a son.

Why this brutal scrutiny of myself? It was time to counter the damage of my culture, my own soft-held fear and to pour warm love on my own soul. It was time to claim every mark and not-perfect inch of my own body -- a body that had been called "too wrinkled" by a man who was fetched by my energy and my mind, but did not like the bare truth of me. His name was Dave and he was 55 years old.

We met on a dating site. Dave was interesting, gentlemanly and bright. He held my hand and toured with me on long bicycle rides. He drove many miles to come to my door. He made meals for us both and ruffled my dog's happy head. I was enticed and longed for the full knowing of this man. And so, we planned a weekend together. That's when things got confusing, unspoken and just-not-quite there. We went to bed in a couple's way -- unclothed and touching -- all parts near. Kisses were shared and sleep came in hugs. I attempted more intimacy throughout the weekend and was deterred each time.

On Monday evening over the phone, I asked this man who had shared my bed for three nights running why we had not made love. "Your body is too wrinkly," he said without a pause. "I have spoiled myself over the years with young woman. I just can't get excited with you. I love your energy and your laughter. I like your head and your heart. But, I just can't deal with your body."

I was stunned. The hurt would come later. I asked him slowly and carefully if he found my body hard to look at. He said yes. "So, this means seeing me naked was troublesome to you?" I asked. He told me he had just looked away. And when the lights were out, he pretended my body was younger -- that I was younger. My breath came deep and full as I processed this information. My face blazed as I felt embarrassed and shamed by memories of my easy nakedness with him in days just passed.

We talked for some time more, my head reeling at the content of the conversation. He spoke of special stockings and clothing that would "hide" my years. He blithely told me he loved "little black dresses" and strappy shoes. He said my hair was not long and flowing as he preferred, but that was okay because it was "cool looking." I felt like a Barbie Doll on acid as I listened to this man. He was totally oblivious to the viciousness of his words. He had turned me into an object to be dressed and positioned to provide satisfaction for his ideas of what female sexual perfection should be.

He explained that now that I knew what was required, we could have a great time in the bedroom. I told him no. I would not hide from my own body. I would not wear outfits to make my body more "tolerable." I would not undress in the dark or shower with the bathroom door closed. I would not diminish myself for him -- or for anyone. My body is beautiful and it goes along with my mind and my heart.

When I told Dave that I never wanted to see or hear from him again, he was confused and complained that I was making a big deal out of nothing. He whined that I had taken a small part of our relationship and made it a major event. I didn't even want to try to explain the hurt and the horror that he had inflicted upon me. I actually felt sickly sorry for this man as I hung up the phone. It was after this call that I went to the bedroom and gently stripped off my clothes.

As I looked in the mirror -- clear-eyed and brave -- I claimed every inch of my body with love, honor and deep care. This body is me. She has held my soul and carried my heart for all of my days. Each wrinkle and imperfection is a badge of my living and of my giving of life. With tears in my eyes, I hugged myself close. I said thank you to God for the gift of my body and my life. And I said thank you to a sad man named Dave for reminding me of how precious it all is.
----------------------

F.B. conversation:

Me: Permit me to respectfully disagree. If she had stayed with the husband of her youth, they would have grown old together and this would probably not be an issue. The fallout from her divorce is now she sleeps around with shallow guys, and is surprised to learn that men tend to be extremely visual. I don't mean to be offensive or to minimize her hurt.

B.S.: [female] Wow, Rich. That is a leap. There is no mention of how she came to be single in the article. Perhaps she was a widow.

Me: Read her profile. She's divorced with two children.

B.R.: Rich, still, you don't know the circumstances...Perhaps he left her for a younger woman...Perhaps he beat her...who knows how people end up in places of devastation in their lives. I think it it's presumptuous to assume less than the best about anyone. The point of the article was to say that she was wrestling and coming to grips with her own body as it aged. That could have been her own husband's response to her. All I'm saying is that it a sensitive look at life.

Me: As I said, I don't want to offend. I'll bow out.

K.I.: [female] Wow this is really beautiful. Sad that the man was such a jerk. But I love that she was able to see herself as beautiful beyond what he said and still love herself. I hope all women see themselves that way. Young or old.

J.Y.: [male] Wow, just wow. I don't know whether to be disgusted or enlightened. No one deserves to die alone but we each make our choices in life (you make your bed, now sleep in it). On a humorous note: this old dude still hasn't learned the #1 rule. Never share your opinions with a naked women lest you want to eat breakfast alone.

B.S.: Ah, J.Y., such a wise one....

The Gender Wage Gap Lie - Slate - By Hanna Rosin

Found here. A counter-narrative from a liberal website.

----------------

You know that “women make 77 cents to every man’s dollar” line you’ve heard a hundred times? It’s not true.

How many times have you heard that “women are paid 77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men”? Barack Obama said it during his last campaign. Women’s groups say it every April 9, which is Equal Pay Day. In preparation for Labor Day, a group protesting outside Macy’s this week repeated it, too, holding up signs and sending out press releases saying “women make $.77 to every dollar men make on the job.” I’ve heard the line enough times that I feel the need to set the record straight: It’s not true.

The official Bureau of Labor Department statistics show that the median earnings of full-time female workers is 77 percent of the median earnings of full-time male workers. But that is very different than “77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men.” The latter gives the impression that a man and a woman standing next to each other doing the same job for the same number of hours get paid different salaries. That’s not at all the case. “Full time” officially means 35 hours, but men work more hours than women. That’s the first problem: We could be comparing men working 40 hours to women working 35.

How to get a more accurate measure? First, instead of comparing annual wages, start by comparing average weekly wages. This is considered a slightly more accurate measure because it eliminates variables like time off during the year or annual bonuses (and yes, men get higher bonuses, but let’s shelve that for a moment in our quest for a pure wage gap number). By this measure, women earn 81 percent of what men earn, although it varies widely by race. African-American women, for example, earn 94 percent of what African-American men earn in a typical week. Then, when you restrict the comparison to men and women working 40 hours a week, the gap narrows to 87 percent.

The point here is not that there is no wage inequality. But by focusing our outrage into a tidy, misleading statistic we’ve missed the actual challenges. It would in fact be much simpler if the problem were rank sexism and all you had to do was enlighten the nation’s bosses or throw the Equal Pay Act at them. But the 91 percent statistic suggests a much more complicated set of problems. Is it that women are choosing lower-paying professions or that our country values women’s professions less? And why do women work fewer hours? Is this all discrimination or, as economist Claudia Goldin likes to say, also a result of “rational choices” women make about how they want to conduct their lives. But we’re still not close to measuring women “doing the same work as men.” For that, we’d have to adjust for many other factors that go into determining salary. Economists Francine Blau and Lawrence Kahn did that in a recent paper, “The Gender Pay Gap.”.”They first accounted for education and experience. That didn’t shift the gap very much, because women generally have at least as much and usually more education than men, and since the 1980s they have been gaining the experience. The fact that men are more likely to be in unions and have their salaries protected accounts for about 4 percent of the gap. The big differences are in occupation and industry. Women congregate in different professions than men do, and the largely male professions tend to be higher-paying. If you account for those differences, and then compare a woman and a man doing the same job, the pay gap narrows to 91 percent. So, you could accurately say in that Obama ad that, “women get paid 91 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men.”

Goldin and Lawrence Katz have done about as close to an apples-to-apples comparison of men’s and women’s wages as exists. (They talk about it here in a Freakonomics discussion.) They tracked male and female MBAs graduating from the University of Chicago from 1990 to 2006. First they controlled for previous job experience, GPA, chosen profession, business-school course and job title. Right out of school, they found only a tiny differential in salary between men and women, which might be because of a little bit of lingering discrimination or because women are worse at negotiating starting salaries. But 10 to 15 years later, the gap widens to 40 percent, almost all of which is due to career interruptions and fewer hours. The gap is even wider for women business school graduates who marry very high earners. (Note: Never marry a rich man).

If this midcareer gap is due to discrimination, it’s much deeper than “male boss looks at female hire and decides she is worth less, and then pats her male colleague on the back and slips him a bonus.” It’s the deeper, more systemic discrimination of inadequate family-leave policies and childcare options, of women defaulting to being the caretakers. Or of women deciding that are suited to be nurses and teachers but not doctors. And in that more complicated discussion, you have to leave room at least for the option of choice—that women just don’t want to work the same way men do.