SCOTUS decision on LGBT and Title VII

This was a bad decision, not because workers with special sexual interests and behaviors should be fired without cause, but because SCOTUS redefined the clear meaning of a law passed over 50 years ago.  It’s a terrible precedent.  Sex meant biology and gender meant grammar when Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed; orientation was an introduction to college or a new job.  Now sex means anything I want it to mean. With this ruling, SCOTUS can reach back and change the clear intent of a law while keeping it.

What if other aspects of law like contract law, or property law, membership law or education law, or health law or family law also becomes, “Your truth is not my truth.”  What if Elizabeth Warren really can decide on her own truth about her tribal heritage? Why should her truth she’s believe all her life be less important than tribal membership laws? What if you demand Catholic communion/eucharist because today you’re feeling Catholic instead of Methodist?  What if you decide age restriction for sexual relationships are meaningless if a child appears to be a different age?  What if you claim residency outside your school district even though you don’t pay taxes there, but today you believe  you are a resident?  These “what ifs” are no more ridiculous than denying biology, the original intent of Title VII was to protect women and minorities.

And the ruling provides no religious protection, which is in the Bill of Rights and should take precedent over the ever changing societal mores and fascination with all things sexual. The ruling leaves open the can of worms on whether transgender individuals who have not had gender-reassignment surgery or counseling can be considered members of the opposite sex — an issue at the forefront of women’s athletics. In fact, this ruling can destroy the gains and protections women have won the last 50 years.

This is an issue that belongs in Congress, where they make laws, not in the Supreme Court.

Stop treating women like it’s 1975

"You're Invited: Women in Technology Networking Night. Tech Hub’s fourth annual Women in Technology networking night is Feb. 27 at 6 p.m. at the TDAI Ideation Zone (300 Pomerene Hall). "

When I receive messages like this from Ohio State University I do wonder why after almost 50 years of pushing, nudging, cajoling and nagging, we still have to have "women only" events. Don't these people read the statistics about women and graduation rates, business start ups, life expectancy, special laws and set asides, etc.

Even President Trump got on the “women only” bandwagon at the urging of his daughter. In 2017 while the pink hat/hate ladies marched, he passed the "Promoting Women in Entrepreneurship Act," which encourages entrepreneurial programs that recruit and support women, and the "Next Space Pioneers and Innovators and Explorers Act," which directs NASA to encourage women and girls to study science, technology, engineering and mathematics and to pursue careers in aerospace.

Women first received more than half of the bachelor’s degrees awarded in the 1981-82 academic year—almost 40 years ago. Today they earn about 57% of bachelor’s degrees. The number of college-educated women in the adult population (ages 25 and older) surpassed the number of college-educated men in 2007--13 years ago.

Or maybe the diversity and inclusion people just have nothing else to do and have to keep building their empires. Or, maybe it's just another way to recruit women to vote for Democrats . . . keep telling them there's a gap, that they are oppressed, that white men especially are their enemy. Democrats hate happy citizens (usually conservatives)--have to find something awful.

Women surgeons

It's a cottage industry. Seeking out victims. Women outnumber men in medical school, law school, pharmacy and veterinary medicine. 40% of U.S. physicians are women (not sure those sexist stats are going to be collected indefinitely). 80% of veterinary students are women. But it's never enough. Today I got an e-mail from OSU about the 4th annual Women in Surgery Symposium and the focus? You guessed it. Workplace inequalities, bullying and microaggressions. This constant agitation by mushrooming "education" agenda driven non-profits is so lucrative, it will never go away. Maybe you'd better interview your surgeon before submitting to the knife. Make sure she isn't angry or stressed.

The end of women’s sports

"If you know sport, you know this beyond a reasonable doubt: there is an average 10-12 percent performance gap between elite males and elite females," Coleman and Shreve wrote in an analysis published online.

"The gap is smaller between elite females and non-elite males, but it's still insurmountable and that's ultimately what matters," they wrote.

"Translating these statistics into real world results," they wrote, "we see, for example, that: Just in the single year 2017, Olympic, World and U.S. Champion Tori Bowie's 100 meters lifetime best of 10.78 was beaten 15,000 times by men and boys.”

https://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/terence-p-jeffrey/house-votes-effectively-ban-womens-sports?

Men in drag—shameful

Apparently, not all American blacks found blackface offensive--some even used clownish make-up that way, but most do. What was once considered fun and vaudevillian by the majority, even TV and film stars, must go.

OK. Now let's get rid of adult men dressing in drag. Since I first became aware of it maybe 50 years ago I have found it extremely offensive for men to make fun of us that way. Oh sure. The drag queens don't call it that, but how else would you describe the emphasis on prosthetic breasts, caked on make-up to hide stubble, ballooning wigs, ridiculing the way women move, walk and talk? Isn't that vaudevillian? Isn't that "womanface?" Whether it's called cross dressing, transvestite, impersonation, or clown face, it's insulting to women.

Just as there is nothing wrong or shameful about a real black face and physique, there is nothing wrong with a woman's face or body. We're built this way for a reason--to fulfill God's command to be fruitful and multiply. We were made in God's image, not from dirt, but from bone and flesh. Women wear make-up to look attractive and sexy--some more successfully than others. Blue lips and green fingernails no matter which sex applies them, do not suggest health, vitality and fertility. Having men ridicule us for profit or fun or just plain meanness, is not a compliment, and it certainly isn't amusing. Let's make dressing in drag as acceptable as Confederate war hero statues.

Hide your yearbooks and annuals in case Democrats ever take up this cause (they won't since they are confused about sex and gender anyway). I know you'll find it even in my high school year book from the 1950s with the athletes dressed as the cheerleaders wearing skirts and wigs for a school skit.

The wage gap myth

Women earn less than men in the same job at the same hourly wage with the same union benefits because they choose to. Yes. With everything else the same, the paycheck is less because men work more overtime. And on a broader scale, men take the jobs with more risk, and they are more willing to move where the better jobs are. A study of librarians over 20 years ago showed that--men moved more often and had more publications. For over a decade, more women have been graduating from college, but not in the same fields as men. There are limited opportunities for dance majors and art historians. In the trades, there are wonderful opportunities, but women aren't flocking there--don't want to mess up the manicure. We live in a competitive, capitalist country (except where the government interferes) and if the CEO can make more money hiring qualified women, she will do it.

https://legalinsurrection.com/2018/12/harvard-study-confirms-the-gender-wage-gap-is-just-a-myth/

The future is female, but what is a female?

Kristin Gillibrand (D- NY) has said something really foolish—the future is female.

The Left doesn’t want the word “female” or “woman” written or spoken because the masculine terms male and man diminish womyn’s power.

The Left is systematically destroying the hard won gains of Title IX in sports by insisting a transwoman is actually a real woman, and who knows what they’ll call him when they’ve succeeded in destroying the language!

The Left says gender is a social construct and that sex is bad science.

The Left reports that with enough hormones, pancake makeup, electrolysis and a convincing fantasy, a man with or without the amputation of his penis and testicles can take the place of women in affirmative action regulations proposed by the government.

The Left in one state already on the brink of financial collapse wants 50% of boards of corporations to be “broads.” What an opportunity for men who can’t compete with other men—just “feel” female and insist that only a transphobic capitalist cabal would reject him.

And really, Ms. Gillibrand, if men and women are interchangeable and equal in all ways, why is your party claiming you as a female senator and when will you stop dyeing your hair and wearing make up?

https://www.lifezette.com/2018/12/new-yorks-gillibrand-insists-the-future-is-female-and-intersectional/

Unintended pregnancies in the military

Active duty women in the U.S. military are more likely (one study says 50%) to have an unintended pregnancy than civilian women in the U.S. population (7% compared to 5%). There's no shortage of insurance or education or birth control, the 3 things liberals like to site as the reason we need legal abortion. So why is this? I don't know--but I'm sure there will now be demands for the Department of Defense to pay for abortions.

https://www.medpagetoday.com/publichealthpolicy/militarymedicine/74959

What President Trump has done for women

I'm not a fan of ruling by Executive Order, but it can indicate a direction if not illegal, just as the orders can be undone by the next president of a different political bent—as in DACA and the Paris “Accord.” Just how evil is the Trump record that women who were interviewed on the Jan. 20 march spoke of (when coherent)? They were having these marches all over the country, even in little Rockford. The were billed as addressing women’s issues (like MeToo), but in fact they were hate trump events.

"Over his first 100 days in 2017, Trump signed two executive orders that support women in business: the Promoting Women in Entrepreneurship Act, which encourages entrepreneurial programs that recruit and support women, and the Inspiring the Next Space Pioneers and Innovators and Explorers Act, which directs NASA to encourage women and girls to study science, technology, engineering and mathematics and to pursue careers in aerospace." (reported in Forbes, April 27, 2017)

This in addition to using his influence in a World Bank plan to encourage women in business. And all those raises, bonuses, promotions, stock sharing in the private sector due to the tax cut. They went to women, as well as fattening their pension plans.  A small pension is a problem for women who often do not have the longevity in the employment, and no one can live a normal retirement on Social Security alone, as the sugar daddy federal government pretends.

Women have traditionally voted Democratic, especially single women, because they want something like spousal assistance and safety net, without the cooking, cleaning and snoring. They are willing to go along with the abuses to their liberty in order to have the "security."

Charlie Rose and me go way back

I used to watch Charlie Rose back in the 90s when he was on PBS and he'd interview notable people. I was a liberal then, so of course, I never noticed political bias on PBS or broadcast news, and there wasn't any Fox or internet access. And although I watched him, I didn't like him. Why? It was the way he interviewed women, although most of his guests were men. He would frame his questions in such a manner and be so detailed, that all she could do was answer Yes or No. He hogged the limelight and diminished his female guests. With men, he was more respectful and seemed to think they could tell their own stories. Was it just Charlie or is this a guy thing?

I also never cared for Bill O’Reilly’s interviewing techniques, but he was rude to everyone—showed no bias toward women.

It's International Women's Day what are the issues?

Some women will be marching today against President Trump. 

• We know it isn't for the right to vote, because many have that and don't vote;
• we know it isn't for higher minimum wage--only 4% of hourly workers earn that;
• we know it isn't for higher education because they outnumber men in college; 
• we know it isn't for protection of Title IX because they believe biological sex doesn't matter and anyone can be a woman even a 6' 300 lb. male wrestler;
•  we know it isn't for higher salaries because most work for the government in some capacity either as teachers ...(average hourly wage about $60 according to BLS) or mid-level bureaucrats in local or state or federal government and they are paid more than in the private sector; 
• we know it isn't for freedom of religion or the right to own a gun because they want people to keep religion private and inside churches and want the 2nd amendment to go away; 
• we know it isn't for life from womb to tomb because they are pro-abortion; 
• we know it isn't to stop hunger because only 25% of Americans are "normal" BMI; 
• we know it isn't to crash the glass ceiling because women are free to make choices for career track; 
• we know it isn't to stop international slave trade in women for sex because they want to do battle against 18th century slave trade.  President Bush freed more Afghan women than Lincoln freed slaves.

So that only leaves the obvious since for the last eight years they just went to work, accepted the paycheck, met friends at the bar to discuss traffic, guys, the kids or grandchildren and nothing is different today under President Trump. Only the paranoid rumors swirling the internet have had a change of names. Again, what are the issues?

https://www.internationalwomensday.com/

https://www.thenation.com/article/striking-on-international-womens-day-is-not-a-privilege/

The issues in 2013 first year of Obama's 2nd term. But no march on Washington.  https://www.theatlantic.com/photo/2013/03/international-womens-day-2013/100470/

March 8--a day without women

Why is the left afraid to investigate the differences in wages among women? For the obvious reasons--we all know the answer. Career choice, education, experience, skill and geography determine salaries in the USA. For men and women.  Both of us use an all female medical practice. I have no idea if they purposely keep out men (except for patients), but there's a high level of estrogen when you walk in. I think I did see a male tech several years ago, but I he's moved on.

And guess what? There is a vast difference in pay among the 

1) female staffer who moves the sliding window, takes our insurance cards and hands us a clipboard, and 
2) the tech who checks our weight, blood pressure and types notes into the computer, and 
3) the doctor who rushes in for 5 minutes and tries to find out what's going on since the last visit.

I'm guessing at income--about $25,000 for the first woman who is a high school graduate, $35,000 for the second who had 6 months of technical school, and about $200,000 for the third woman who had 4 years of undergrad, 4 years of medical school and 3-7 years of residency before I saw her in that office. Where's the rage, and who should be marching on the Day without women? Woman one, two or three?

I asked a pleasant young clerk at the ophthalmologist office what her training was for the field, and she said none, she had a degree (something in the humanities) and this was the job she found when she and her husband moved to the area. Which category will she go in?   That practice is almost all male doctors and female staff.

Obama's Bathroom Wars

We know the easy, sensible solution for the Obama ‪#‎bathroomwars‬ in which the federal government bullies the states, and it isn't sharing showers and toilet rooms. It's lockable single stall facilities which many facilities like historial and church buildings already have, if an over reaching federal government thinks it's a violation of the Constitution for a man with genital deformities not to shower with women. Yes, that's absurd, but that's what government lawyers are claiming. It's far cheaper than law suits, because we know how the feds play this game--it withdraws all federal support for schools, hurting the children. Now that won't stop the LGBT steamroller, because the goal isn't who uses which toilet, but at least it won't bankrupt the states and children won't be terrorized. No, it isn't about the potential of sexual assault either, as some have been led to believe--a child or woman can just as easily be sexually assaulted by a same sex predator as the opposite sex. It's a lot more common than what is reported.

 http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/09/politics/north-carolina-hb2-justice-department-deadline/

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/279256-doj-files-lawsuit-against-north-carolina-over-bathroom-law

Gender Identity and homeless shelters

Emergency shelters are the next target for regulations from the federal government elevating gender identity over health, safety, privacy, and religious liberty concerns. Why is this tiny fraction of a fraction of the population considered more important than the health, safety, privacy and religious liberty of women who have been women since conception and who have struggled for centuries for the crumbs of laws and protections given to men?

 http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=%2Fpress%2Fpress_releases_media_advisories%2F2015%2FHUDNo_15-150

The pay gap. Does it really exist?

          
When my Grandmother Mary wanted to be a school teacher in the late 1800s she was turned down by the Ashton school board because she lived at home with her father (her mother had died in 1896), and the thinking in those days was if a man could support her she shouldn't be taking a job from a man who might be supporting a family. I even encountered this in the 1960s when applying for a graduate assistantship--I was married, my competition was not.  Sort of like we feel today about immigrants getting the jobs we think citizens should have.  

Today we have laws and guarantees for equal pay like Iceland and have had for decades. If Iceland has high gender equality, they are probably doing the same jobs. We don't have laws (yet) demanding equal results for a B.A. in Social Studies and a PhD in Computer Science or for a woman who doesn't drop out for 10 years and one who did (as I did). For almost 40 years, women have outnumbered men in enrollment in college, but they are still not selecting the difficult and well paid degree programs. Also, highly educated women tend to marry men of the same calibre, and thus don't always enter the work force at the same rate as less wealthy women and stay home to raise their children who then do the same. For each group of college grads marry college grads, or doctors marrying doctors, or lawyers marrying lawyers, the gap widens between their families and those women who didn't go to college, or didn't marry at all before having children.

When everything is taken into consideration, like willingness to move, or to take unpleasant assignments (like travel) to get ahead, or to negotiate salary, there's almost no difference (in same job with same requirements in education). Think about it; if employers could get women to work for less for the same job, why would they hire men?  When I asked my boss why a male librarian colleague with the same work experience and education made more than I did, he told me, "Because he asked for more."

The median annual wage for high school teachers was $56,310 in May 2014., and for elementary $53,760, but based on hourly rate, they do much better than accountants and architects according the BLS. More men take the secondary position and are less common in elementary (although I remember 2 in the school my children attended in the 1970s).  Is that a pay gap or a choice?  Should people who teach compliant children the basics of their ABCs and math really make as much as people who teach "children" taller, smarter and with more discipline problems who are studying chemistry and physics?

The next time you go to the doctor even for a "wellness exam" like I did this week,  take a look at the women in the front office doing scheduling and billing, and compare them with who you see in the back doing x-ray or blood draw or stress test or bone density. There will be no men in the front, but about 1/3 to 1/2 of the tech staff will be male. What pays more? That which requires more education. How are these positions viewed in statistics? They are lumped into one category. There will even be a difference between the women in the front and those in the back--and it's very noticeable--particularly their weight and age.

HT Connie Dunn for the discussion that started on FB.
 

We have visited Israel—this is true

Black, female professor is under fire from transgender students

Must be both sexist and racist in addition to anti-Christian bigotry.  I can’t tell which direction the student is going based on the photograph.

Carol Miller Swain is an American political scientist, professor of political science and law at Vanderbilt University, and television host. She is the author or editor of six books. Wikipedia

https://www.outandaboutnashville.com/story/vandy-trans-student-we-are-allowing-culture#.Vk-_efmrRbW

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/19/black-christian-conservative-vanderbilt-professor-carol-swain-says-facebook-blocked-account-calls-religious-discrimination/

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/20/facebook-restores-carol-swain-account-breitbart-exposes-block/

So conservative Christians are being blocked on social media.  This is the kind of hatred that has turned “progressives” into fascists.

Too much sex at OSU

The Women's Place (Ohio State University) produces a comprehensive report on the status of women at Ohio State. The purpose of the report is to synthesize and disseminate comparative data to evaluate progress towards increasing diversity and promoting equality for women at Ohio State. In doing so the report identifies successful areas and areas where more work is needed."

I read it; mostly about implicit bias and why there aren't more women in top positions. So I wrote them: "I've read the 2015 report. I think I see the problem. Your organization focuses too much on sex (babies, assault, relationships) and not enough on skills, leadership, intelligence and accomplishments."

http://womensplace.osu.edu/assets/files/Status_Report_2014-15.pdf

Patricia Arquette got it all wrong for several reasons

First of all, there is no longer a pay gap—and hasn’t been for a number of years.  A 2009 report commissioned by the Labor Department that analyzed more than 50 papers on the topic found that the so-called pay gap “may be almost entirely” the result of choices both men and women make.   In fact, in a number of cities, young college educated women are out-earning young college educated men.  Someone should complain.

Secondly, although I don’t see a lot of movies, I know they are based on the box office draw of certain stars.  If the women aren’t a draw, they don’t get the lucrative contracts—and they all have agents who do the negotiating. In the movie I watched last night Diane Lane made $6,000,000 for this movie, more than what’s her name who played her sister, or the guy who was John Cusak’s buddy. She probably made more than Cusak, since in 2005 she was a bigger draw. Most actors will fall into the $10 to $30 an hour range with the large part of that is around $16 hourly.  That’s a long way from $6,000,000 ten years ago. Tom Hanks made about $800 for a film he was in in 1980.

And third,  Meryl Streep (net worth $45 million) sitting in the front jumped up and stole her thunder, grabbing the camera’s attention, and thus the nation’s.  What is the pay difference between Streep and Arquette?  Is it fair?  Why always compare women to men.  Why not women to women?  There are great pay gaps there.  Nancy Pelosi is worth millions and Tina who works the cash register at Panera’s will probably never have much more than she has now. Patricia Arquette (net worth $24 million) sure makes a lot more money than veterinary medicine librarians—all of them put together.

“Women don't get equal pay in America, says actress Patricia Arquette, and she blames the Founders. "To every woman who gave birth, to every taxpayer and citizen of this nation, we have fought for everybody else's equal rights," Arquette said in her Oscar acceptance speech. "It's time to have wage equality once and for all. And equal rights for women in the United States of America." The supposed pay gap has been largely discredited, but never confuse a liberal (especially one from Hollywood) with facts. Worse, Arquette went on to blame the men who fought to secure Liberty and who authored our Constitution. "It's inexcusable that we go around the world and we talk about equal rights for women in other countries when we don't have equal rights for women in America," Arquette lectured. "And we don't because when they wrote the Constitution, they didn't intend it for women." In the Heritage Foundation's Guide to the Constitution, Tiffany Jones Miller explains, "Contrary to popular belief, the United States Constitution of 1787 is a gender-neutral document. Throughout the original text, the Framers refer to 'persons' -- as opposed to 'male persons' -- and use the pronoun 'he' only in the generic sense. The word 'male' did not even appear in the Constitution until the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868." In other words, Arquette suffers from something common to men and women on the Left: ignorance.” Patriot Post, Daily Digest, Feb. 24, 2015

How the non-employed spend their time—men and women

I did a survey like this of my own life about 40 years ago when I was a SAHM and the children were in elementary school. I counted their time at school as "work," my husband's time including travel as "work," his home maintenance chores and outdoor yard care as work, and tracked what I did that could conceivably be called work--house cleaning, cooking, laundry, organizing, transportation of the children, supervising play groups, doctor's appointments, helping with school projects. I lost big time. Everyone in the family, including the children, was working harder and longer hours than I was (I had a nap every afternoon). The meme is how hard women at home work--nonsense. Many women I know make up work, both those who are employed and those who work at home. Being busy is a compulsion with many women, and a lot is just wasted time. My great great grandmothers Williford (TN) and Wenger (OH) worked hard--had no electricity or running water, helped with the farm, slaughtered animals for food, baked their own bread, made clothes and quilts, raised their own food, fed the hired men, nursed the sick, took in less fortunate relatives, and birthed 10+ babies. Now that was work!

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/01/06/upshot/how-nonemployed-americans-spend-their-weekdays-men-vs-women.html