Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez falsely accused one of her critics of being sexist because she can’t handle legitimate criticism

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez originally claimed on her campaign website that she grew up in the Bronx, and that she had a long commute every day to get to a better school in the suburbs.

Several people responded by saying that she only lived in the Bronx until she was five years old, and that she later lived in a middle class suburb, and that she did not have the long daily commute to school that she had claimed.

One of her critics wrote the following:

Right, but @Ocasio2018 didn’t grow up in a city. She grew up in a small, homogenous, affluent suburb, where she attended excellent schools before pretending she grew up in the Bronx.

In my opinion, it would have been best for Oxasio-Cortez to have done one of the two following things:

Either

1) Defend her original claim.

Or

2) Admit that her critics were telling the truth.

However, instead of doing one of those two things, Ocasio-Cortez falsely accused one of her critics of being sexist, when she wrote the following (the bolding is mine):

In which a Republican literally tries to mansplaining *my own childhood* and life to me.

And in true mansplaining form, he’s doing it wrong with an great degree of confidence.

It begs the question: is the GOP really “sending us their best?”

By accusing her critic of “mansplaining,” Ocasio-Cortez is falsely accusing him of being sexist.

In reality, there is nothing sexist in his criticism of her.

Ocasio-Cortez views herself as being a victim of imaginary sexism that does not actually exist.

Also, the fact that she changed her campaign website in response to the criticism suggests – very strongly – that her critics were correct. It appears that she did indeed lie about her upbringing.

I don’t care where Ocasio-Cortez grew up.

But I do care if she lied about it.

And more importantly, I care that she is so horrible at debating that she feels the need to falsely accuse her critic of being sexist.

January 1, 2019. Tags: , , , . Politics, Sexism. 1 comment.

Hypocrite UCLA Professor Corinne Bendersky wants other women (but not herself) to become firefighters

Corinne Bendersky is Professor of Management and Organizations at UCLA Anderson School of Management, and is also the school’s faculty director of the Human Resources Roundtable Association.

She recently wrote this column for the Harvard Business Review, which is titled “Making U.S. Fire Departments More Diverse and Inclusive.”

In her column, Bendersky explains why she believes more women should be firefighters.

But she herself is not a firefighter.

My own personal belief is that a woman should choose her own career. If a woman wants to be a firefighter, that’s great. If she’d rather be a doctor, computer programmer, electrical engineer, astronomer, actuary, entrepreneur, stockbroker, accountant, electrician, plumber, carpenter, welder, or construction worker, that should be her choice too. But it should be what she herself wants, not what someone else like Bendersky wants.

I also believe that Bendersky is a hypocrite, because while she wants other women to be firefighters, she herself is not willing to be a firefighter.

Furthermore, I am in favor of meritocracy, and I am against affirmative action.

There already exists at least one real world example of affirmative action in firefighting. The following is an excerpt from my book Barack Obama Is Afraid of Sharyl Attkisson: The definitive guide to the shenanigans of America’s 44th president. It begins on page 59.

Obama made it so firefighters are hired based on race instead of on merit

The Obama administration accused fire and police departments in Jacksonville, Florida, New York City, and Dayton, Ohio of “racial discrimination” because they required potential firefighters and police officers to take a written test. Ten real examples of these “racist” questions from the New York test can be read here.

It is extremely easy to pass the New York Fire Department’s written test.

The test is multiple choice.

And it’s open book.

And the questions are insultingly easy – here are three examples of actual questions from the test:

A group of firefighters and their officer respond to a fifth floor apartment in a seven-story building. When they arrive at the apartment, they are told that the contents of a wastepaper basket was on fire, and the fire was extinguished prior to their arrival. The officer instructs the firefighters to ventilate, or remove, the smoke from the apartment by first using a method that will not cause damage to property. Which one of the following would be the most appropriate method for the firefighters to use to remove the smoke?

A) Breaking out all the windows with a crowbar.
B) Pulling down the ceiling with a six-foot hook.
C) Cutting through the floors with an eight-pound axe.
D) Manually opening all the windows and removing the screen.

Firefighters are required to operate on the subway tracks during emergencies in the subway stations. Which one of the following would present the greatest threat to the safety of a firefighter working on the subway tracks?

A) A subway platform crowded with people.
B) Rubbish burning in a small garbage can located on a subway platform.
C) A subway car entering a station.
D) A maintenance crew working on the track.

Firefighters conduct building inspections to locate potential life-threatening conditions in the even there is a fire. Which one of the following would the most-serious threat to life in the event of a fire?

A) An unlocked front door in a building.
B) A locked basement door in a building.
C) A car in the driveway of a building.
D) A building with a missing fire escape.

In March 2011, Obama claimed that the above questions were “racist.”

Obama then ordered the New York Fire Department to hire black firefighters who scored only 30% on that test.

That’s 30% right – not 30% wrong.

30%, on an open book, multiple choice test, with questions so easy that you’d have to be a complete idiot to get them wrong.

One of the unqualified black people that Obama pressured them to hire is a guy named Michael D. Johnson.

As of May 2015, Johnson had been working as a firefighter for the past 11 months, and was getting paid an annual salary of $76,488 by the New York Fire Department for his job as a firefighter.

However, during those 11 months, Johnson refused to actually fight fires.

And his supervisors were afraid to fire him because they didn’t want to be accused of “racism.”

December 31, 2018. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , . Barack Obama, Racism, Sexism, Social justice warriors. Leave a comment.

California Women’s March cancels upcoming event for being “overwhelmingly white”

The California chapter of the Women’s March has canceled an event that had been scheduled for next month, because it would have been “overwhelmingly white.”

The group’s official statement on the cancellation says (the bolding is mine):

“The local organizers are continuing to meet and discuss how to broaden representation in the organizing committee to create an event that represents and supports peoples who live here in Humboldt. Up to this point, the participants have been overwhelmingly white, lacking representation from several perspectives in our community… Instead of pushing forward with crucial voices absent, the organizing team will take time for more outreach. Our goal is that planning will continue and we will be successful in creating an event that will build power and community engagement through connection between women that seek to improve the lives of all in our community.”

 

December 28, 2018. Tags: , , , , , , . Racism, Sexism. 2 comments.

The way that Planned Parenthood treats its pregnant employees is cruel, illegal, and extremely hypocritical

The New York Times just published this article, which is titled, “Planned Parenthood Is Accused of Mistreating Pregnant Employees.”

The article cites numerous examples of how Planned Parenthood has given absolutely horrible treatment to its pregnant employees.

Not only are these actions on the part of Planned Parenthood cruel, some of them are also illegal, and all of them are extremely hypocritical.

If there’s any one organization that should treat its pregnant employees with kindness and respect, as well as obeying the laws regarding pregnant employees, it’s Planned Parenthood.

Here are some excerpts from the article, along with my own comments:

Ms. Hairston told the human-resources department for Planned Parenthood’s clinic in White Plains, N.Y., that her high blood pressure was threatening her pregnancy. She sent the department multiple notes from her nurse recommending that she take frequent breaks.

Managers ignored the notes. They rarely gave her time to rest or to take a lunch break, Ms. Hairston said.

“I had to hold back tears talking to pregnant women, telling them to take care of their pregnancies when I couldn’t take care of mine,” she said. “It made me jealous.”

That is just downright plain mean.

Planned Parenthood… has been accused of sidelining, ousting or otherwise handicapping pregnant employees, according to interviews with more than a dozen current and former employees.

In interviews and legal documents, women at Planned Parenthood… described discrimination that violated federal or state laws — managers considering pregnancy in hiring decisions, for example, or denying rest breaks recommended by a doctor.

These are the exact same kinds of illegal treatment of employees that left wing feminists have always claimed to be against. The fact that Planned Parenthood did this to its own pregnant employees is inexcusable, illegal, and terribly hypocritical.

… at Planned Parenthood, the country’s leading provider of reproductive services, managers in some locations declined to hire pregnant job candidates, refused requests by expecting mothers to take breaks and in some cases pushed them out of their jobs after they gave birth, according to current and former employees in California, Texas, North Carolina and New York.

Most Planned Parenthood offices do not provide paid maternity leave

How many zillions of times have left wing feminists said they were in favor of paid maternity leave? And can anyone name an organization that is more left wing feminist than Planned Parenthood? I dare say that these pregnant employees would have been treated far better if they had been working at one of the conservative, right wing, for-profit corporations that left wing feminists are always accusing of being “sexist” and “misogynist.”

A dozen lawsuits filed against Planned Parenthood clinics in federal and state courts since 2013 accused managers of denying workers rest periods, lunch breaks or overtime pay, or retaliating against them for taking medical leave.

Managers have discriminated against pregnant women and new mothers, according to interviews with the current and former Planned Parenthood employees and with organizers from the Office and Professional Employees International Union, which represents some Planned Parenthood workers.

In Miami, one current and two former employees said that women at a Planned Parenthood office were scared to tell managers they were pregnant. One of them said that, in conversations with supervisors, colleagues would often volunteer that they were not planning on having children or were gay or single.

“It was looked down upon for you to get pregnant,” said Carolina Delgado, who worked in the Miami office until 2012. “I don’t think that any supervisor had to literally say it for us to feel it.”

Apparently, Planned Parenthood would rather spend money fighting lawsuits than treat its pregnant employees with respect. Absolutely disgusting.

A former hiring manager at a Planned Parenthood in California said that when internal promotions came up, supervisors openly debated whether candidates were likely to get pregnant in the near future and preferred those who were not. They declined to hire one pregnant woman and to promote one new mother, the employee said. (Under the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act, it is illegal to consider whether a job candidate is or will become pregnant.)

The former manager said her colleagues felt they couldn’t afford to promote someone only to lose them for several weeks.

Completely despicable. It was left wing feminists who fought so hard to pass the Pregnancy Discrimination Act in the first place. How dare they violate the very same law that they expect everyone else to obey.

49 of Planned Parenthood’s 55 regional offices — which each manage a set of local clinics — do not provide paid maternity leave

89% of Planned Parenthood’s regional offices do not give paid maternity leave to their employees. So why do they even call themselves “Planned Parenthood” in the first place?

Tracy Webber, the former director of clinical services in White Plains, sued the organization for pregnancy discrimination in 2009, saying she had been fired four weeks after giving birth. Planned Parenthood settled for undisclosed terms.

Planned Parenthood fired an employee because she became a parent? That’s mean, and it’s illegal, and especially, it’s the height of hypocrisy.

A woman who worked at Planned Parenthood’s New Rochelle, N.Y., clinic and who declined to be named said in an interview that, when she got pregnant last year, managers ignored her doctor’s note recommending frequent breaks. Her manager asked her to delay her maternity leave and, after she gave birth, pressed her to return early.

The fact that Planned Parenthood ignored a doctor’s note from one of its own pregnant employees makes me wonder about the quality of the medical care and advice that Planned Parenthood gives to its own clients.

A medical assistant at the same clinic was fired in May 2018, the day she returned from maternity leave, according to a former human resources manager who oversaw the clinic. Jonas Urba, the woman’s lawyer, said she reached a confidential resolution with Planned Parenthood.

Once again, Planned Parenthood fired one of its employees because she became a parent. This kind of behavior by Planned Parenthood is extraordinarily hypocritical.

When Ms. Hairston asked for regular breaks, including 30 minutes for lunch, her supervisors brushed her off. Ms. Hairston said she sent multiple notes from her nurse at Full Circle Women’s Health to the regional office’s human resources department, stating that the extra breaks were medically necessary. No one responded, and nothing changed, according to Ms. Hairston and the former human resources manager.

Ms. Hairston’s hands and feet swelled; the clinic’s plastic gloves no longer fit. Her blood pressure got so high that her doctor put her on bed rest when she was seven months pregnant.

She returned to work on strict orders to not work more than six hours a day and to take regular breaks. One day in March, she worked a much longer shift. She soon became so sick that her doctor told her to go back on bed rest. A few days later, on March 23, she went to the hospital. Doctors performed an emergency C-section. She was 34 weeks pregnant.

When she had been on maternity leave for eight of the 12 weeks guaranteed by the Family and Medical Leave Act, Planned Parenthood’s human resources department called her multiple times and urged her to return to work early, Ms. Hairston said. She emailed the department and said she felt “discriminated against.” She resigned in June.

So this is how Planned Parenthood treats pregnant women. This is astoundingly horrendous. Shame on Planned Parenthood for treating women the exact opposite of the way Planned Parenthood tries to depict itself in its publicity material.

So, there you have it. Planned Parenthood is mean to its pregnant employees, it breaks the very laws that it claims to support, and it apparently has no interest in helping its female employees who “plan” to become “parents,” despite that being the organization’s very name.

December 21, 2018. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , . Abortion, Sexism. Leave a comment.

New York Times: Planned Parenthood Is Accused of Mistreating Pregnant Employees

Not only are these actions on the part of Planned Parenthood cruel, some of them are also illegal, and all of them are extremely hypocritical.

If there’s any one organization that should treat pregnant employees with kindness and respect, as well as obeying the laws regarding pregnant employees, it’s Planned Parenthood.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/20/business/planned-parenthood-pregnant-employee-discrimination-women.html

Planned Parenthood Is Accused of Mistreating Pregnant Employees

Employers that champion women face accusations of discriminating against their pregnant workers, showing how widespread the problem is in American workplaces.

December 20, 2018

As a medical assistant at Planned Parenthood, Ta’Lisa Hairston urged pregnant women to take rest breaks at work, stay hydrated and, please, eat regular meals.

Then she got pregnant and couldn’t follow her own advice.

Last winter, Ms. Hairston told the human-resources department for Planned Parenthood’s clinic in White Plains, N.Y., that her high blood pressure was threatening her pregnancy. She sent the department multiple notes from her nurse recommending that she take frequent breaks.

Managers ignored the notes. They rarely gave her time to rest or to take a lunch break, Ms. Hairston said.

“I had to hold back tears talking to pregnant women, telling them to take care of their pregnancies when I couldn’t take care of mine,” she said. “It made me jealous.”

Discrimination against pregnant women and new mothers remains widespread in the American workplace. It is so pervasive that even organizations that define themselves as champions of women are struggling with the problem.

That includes Planned Parenthood, which has been accused of sidelining, ousting or otherwise handicapping pregnant employees, according to interviews with more than a dozen current and former employees.

In interviews and legal documents, women at Planned Parenthood and other organizations with a feminist bent described discrimination that violated federal or state laws — managers considering pregnancy in hiring decisions, for example, or denying rest breaks recommended by a doctor.

In other cases, the bias was more subtle. Many women said they were afraid to announce a pregnancy at work, sensing they would be seen as abandoning their colleagues.

Some of those employers saw accommodating expecting mothers as expensive and inconvenient. Others were unsympathetic to workers seeking special treatment.

At Natera, which sells genetic tests for pregnant women, two former employees, Melissa Blain Johnson and Judit Rigo, said they were demoted while on maternity leave. Ms. Johnson, who has sued Natera, also said that she was left feeling like a “guinea pig” when her boss suggested that she and another pregnant employee pose as patients and get genetically tested by a rival company.

“Ms. Johnson’s employment at Natera was not influenced inappropriately by her pregnancy or subsequent maternity leave,” said Anna Czene, a Natera spokeswoman. “The same was true for Ms. Rigo.”

At Avon, which calls itself “the company for women,” two employees in a cosmetics-testing lab have sued for being forced to handle toxic chemicals while pregnant. A marketing executive, Caroline Ruiz, also said she was fired four days after announcing her pregnancy.

Paige Cali, a spokeswoman for Avon, said the company “strongly denies claims of discrimination.”

At Mehri & Skalet, a progressive law firm suing Walmart for pregnancy discrimination, three lawyers have accused a founding partner, Cyrus Mehri, of mistreatment. Heidi Burakiewicz said Mr. Mehri pressured her to return early from maternity leave. Sandi Farrell was told to participate in a performance review during her leave, and when she asked to postpone it she was fired. Taryn Wilgus Null said Mr. Mehri questioned her child care arrangements in a performance review after she returned from leave.

Mr. Mehri said he strongly denied the accusations and that no one was mistreated after giving birth. He said that Ms. Burakiewicz’s allegation “is a lie, plain and simple,” that Ms. Farrell had performance problems and that Ms. Null, now a lawyer at the Justice Department, misinterpreted his comments.

And at Planned Parenthood, the country’s leading provider of reproductive services, managers in some locations declined to hire pregnant job candidates, refused requests by expecting mothers to take breaks and in some cases pushed them out of their jobs after they gave birth, according to current and former employees in California, Texas, North Carolina and New York.

Most Planned Parenthood offices do not provide paid maternity leave, though many let new mothers take partially paid disability leave.

“I believe we must do better than we are now,” Leana Wen, the president of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America, said in a statement. “It’s our obligation to do better, for our staff, for their families and for our patients.”

Ms. Wen said the organization was investigating the allegations of pregnancy discrimination reported by The New York Times. The organization also is conducting a review to determine the cost of providing paid maternity leave to nearly 12,000 employees nationwide.

Vincent Russell, the regional chief executive who oversees the office where Ms. Hairston worked, denied her accusations.

While Planned Parenthood’s clinics and regional offices brought in about $1.5 billion in fiscal year 2016 — half from private donations and half from the government, to reimburse treatment provided to Medicaid patients — conservative lawmakers routinely threaten to kill its taxpayer funding. With their finances precarious, the clinics pay modest salaries to the employees who provide health care — abortions, cancer screenings, prenatal care, disease testing — to 2.4 million mostly low-income patients every year.

The Planned Parenthood Federation of America has its headquarters in Manhattan. The clinics that serve women are run by 55 regional affiliates with their own chief executives and human resources policies. They receive some money and support from headquarters.

Tight budgets sometimes created punishing workplace conditions, employees said. A dozen lawsuits filed against Planned Parenthood clinics in federal and state courts since 2013 accused managers of denying workers rest periods, lunch breaks or overtime pay, or retaliating against them for taking medical leave.

Managers have discriminated against pregnant women and new mothers, according to interviews with the current and former Planned Parenthood employees and with organizers from the Office and Professional Employees International Union, which represents some Planned Parenthood workers.

In Miami, one current and two former employees said that women at a Planned Parenthood office were scared to tell managers they were pregnant. One of them said that, in conversations with supervisors, colleagues would often volunteer that they were not planning on having children or were gay or single.

“It was looked down upon for you to get pregnant,” said Carolina Delgado, who worked in the Miami office until 2012. “I don’t think that any supervisor had to literally say it for us to feel it.”

Dannette Hill, Planned Parenthood’s head of human resources, said that most parents who work in the Miami office have been promoted after returning from leave.

A former hiring manager at a Planned Parenthood in California said that when internal promotions came up, supervisors openly debated whether candidates were likely to get pregnant in the near future and preferred those who were not. They declined to hire one pregnant woman and to promote one new mother, the employee said. (Under the federal Pregnancy Discrimination Act, it is illegal to consider whether a job candidate is or will become pregnant.)

The former manager said her colleagues felt they couldn’t afford to promote someone only to lose them for several weeks.

Financial pressures also explain why 49 of Planned Parenthood’s 55 regional offices — which each manage a set of local clinics — do not provide paid maternity leave. Employees in about 20 of those regions can use short-term disability to earn a portion of their salaries while on leave. The New York headquarters provides six weeks of paid parental leave.

Last year, Christine Charbonneau, who runs the regional office in Seattle, asked her human resources department to find out how much it would cost to cover maternity leave for the region. The estimate: $2 million a year. That is the entire annual budget of some clinics.

Ms. Charbonneau’s office, which oversees 27 clinics in the Northwest, generates $77 million a year in revenue. But states like Washington and Idaho have cut government funding in recent years. Paying for maternity leave, Ms. Charbonneau said, could force her to close clinics.

“It is easy to accuse someone of hypocrisy if you’re not the one trying to find $2 million out of thin air,” she said. “You try to be the Planned Parenthood that donors expect, and yet it is unattainable.”

Planned Parenthood’s policies, though, can make it hard for employees to scrape by after giving birth.

In August, Marissa Hamilton, an employee at Planned Parenthood in Colorado, gave birth to a baby boy. He was eight weeks premature, weighed less than four pounds and spent weeks in neonatal intensive care. The office doesn’t provide paid maternity leave.

In September, she started a fund-raiser on GoFundMe. On the appeals page, Ms. Hamilton wrote that she was under financial strain because “On top of medical bills I cannot work.” She set the goal at $15,000. So far she has raised $1,995.

Multiple Planned Parenthood executives said in interviews that they were eager for The Times to publish an article about the lack of paid maternity leave because they hoped it would lead to changes in the organization’s policies.

Ms. Hairston, the former medical assistant, took the job in 2015 because she believed in the group’s mission. “Planned Parenthood helped me give women a voice to do what they wanted with their bodies,” she said.

Ms. Hairston, 27, counseled women who wanted abortions and checked up on those carrying to term. She said she rarely took lunch and often spent 10-hour shifts on her feet.

She figured that there would be no better place to work while pregnant than a clinic that dealt with expecting mothers every day.

But Planned Parenthood’s Westchester County clinics, overseen by a regional office in Hawthorne, N.Y., had a history of issues with pregnant employees.

Tracy Webber, the former director of clinical services in White Plains, sued the organization for pregnancy discrimination in 2009, saying she had been fired four weeks after giving birth. Planned Parenthood settled for undisclosed terms.

A woman who worked at Planned Parenthood’s New Rochelle, N.Y., clinic and who declined to be named said in an interview that, when she got pregnant last year, managers ignored her doctor’s note recommending frequent breaks. Her manager asked her to delay her maternity leave and, after she gave birth, pressed her to return early.

A medical assistant at the same clinic was fired in May 2018, the day she returned from maternity leave, according to a former human resources manager who oversaw the clinic. Jonas Urba, the woman’s lawyer, said she reached a confidential resolution with Planned Parenthood.

The former human resources manager, who requested anonymity, said that executives assumed that when a pregnant worker brought in a doctor’s note, it was an excuse to work less. People who took sick days were perceived as lacking commitment.

“All the individuals identified in the article were treated fairly and equitably, free of any discrimination,” said Mr. Russell, the head of Planned Parenthood’s Hawthorne office.

When Ms. Hairston asked for regular breaks, including 30 minutes for lunch, her supervisors brushed her off. Ms. Hairston said she sent multiple notes from her nurse at Full Circle Women’s Health to the regional office’s human resources department, stating that the extra breaks were medically necessary. No one responded, and nothing changed, according to Ms. Hairston and the former human resources manager.

Ms. Hairston’s hands and feet swelled; the clinic’s plastic gloves no longer fit. Her blood pressure got so high that her doctor put her on bed rest when she was seven months pregnant.

She returned to work on strict orders to not work more than six hours a day and to take regular breaks. One day in March, she worked a much longer shift. She soon became so sick that her doctor told her to go back on bed rest. A few days later, on March 23, she went to the hospital. Doctors performed an emergency C-section. She was 34 weeks pregnant.

When she had been on maternity leave for eight of the 12 weeks guaranteed by the Family and Medical Leave Act, Planned Parenthood’s human resources department called her multiple times and urged her to return to work early, Ms. Hairston said. She emailed the department and said she felt “discriminated against.” She resigned in June.

“I didn’t get into the medical field to be treated like this,” she said.

The last she heard from Planned Parenthood was a letter asking her to donate money. She threw it in the trash.

December 20, 2018. Tags: , , , , , , , . Abortion, Sexism. Leave a comment.

Alyssa Milano falsely says that Linda Sarsour does not support Sharia law

Alyssa Milano was recently on a panel at Politicon.

Laura Loomer asked the following question to Milano:

“My question is for you, Alyssa Milano. You are friends with Linda Sarsour, and both of you ladies have positioned yourselves as speakers and representatives of the #MeToo movement. I want to ask you right now to disavow Linda Sarsour because she is a supporter of Sharia law. And under Sharia law, women are oppressed, women are forced to wear a hijab. My question is, will you please disavow her because she is advocating for Sharia law?”

Milano answered:

“She’s not. She’s not.”

Then a security guard escorted Loomer out of the room.

Milano was lying when she answered Loomer’s question.

Sarsour organized the Women’s March in January 2017. Prior to this, Sarsour had made the following four tweets in favor of the U.S. adopting Sharia law:

Sarsour made this tweet, which says the following:

“10 weeks of PAID maternity leave in Saudi Arabia. Yes PAID. And ur worrying about women driving. Puts us to shame.”

She also made this tweet, which says:

“shariah law is reasonable and once u read into the details it makes a lot of sense. People just know the basics”

and this tweet, which says:

“You’ll know when you’re living under Sharia Law if suddenly all your loans & credit cards become interest free. Sound nice, doesn’t it?”

and this tweet, which says:

“If you are still paying interest than Sharia Law hasn’t taken over America.”

These statements prove that Sarsour wants the U.S. to adopt Sharia law. Sharia law bans women from driving cars, prohibits women from appearing alone in public, calls for girls to have their genitals mutilated, and gives a woman’s testimony in court only half the value of a man’s. After Sarsour made those tweets, liberals chose her to be one of the organizers of the 2017 Women’s March. But any movement which truly cared about women’s rights would not support someone who wants the U.S. to treat women in such a horrible and repulsive manner.

Of course the Women’s March from 2017 had nothing to do with helping women, and everything to do with promoting left wing politics. Although right wing women were allowed to participate (because it was in a public place), none were invited to give speeches. Only left wing women were invited to give speeches.

Alyssa Milano was lying when she said that Linda Sarsour does not support Sharia law.

The fact that a security guard then escorted Loomer out of the room is absurd.

I miss the old days, when liberals were against the oppression of women, instead of being in favor of it like they are today.

Here’s video of the conversation between Loomer and Milano:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TxrHOlSYNkY

October 23, 2018. Tags: , , , , , , , , . Islamization, Sexism. Leave a comment.

Kavanaugh accuser asks Senate to limit press access for hearing

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/sep/25/accuser-senate-limit-press-kavanaugh-hearing/

Kavanaugh accuser asks Senate to limit press access for hearing

September 25, 2018

Christine Blasey Ford’s lawyers have asked senators to limit the press who will be allowed in the room to cover Thursday’s hearing with her and Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and sought to dictate at least some of the outlets.

Coverage is one of a number of issues Ms. Blasey Ford’s lawyers are negotiating with Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Michael Bromwich said in emails sent Tuesday afternoon that he was requesting access for three “robocams,” three specific wire services, photographers from the Associated Press, Reuters and one unspecified service, and a pool reporter for newspapers and magazines. In a follow-up email he specified that the robocams should be operated by “the CSPAN TV pool,” and said he also wanted space for a radio reporter.

Those emails were among several seen by The Washington Times detailing the tense negotiations between Ms. Blasey Ford’s team and committee staff.

While committees sometimes limit press based on space at hearings, and some witnesses have arranged to have their identities shielded, longtime Capitol Hill watchers struggled to think of precedent for a witness dictating terms of press coverage.

In Ms. Blasey Ford’s case she has received threats since she went public with her story, and her team has insisted the committee guarantee her safety as she testifies, as well as limited access to the hearing.

Ms. Blasey Ford has accused Judge Kavanaugh of an attempted sexual assault at a party when they were both high school students in the early 1980s. He has vehemently denied the accusation, and as yet no contemporaneous witness has come forward to verify her allegations.

She has agreed to testify but has laid out a number of parameters and is objecting to some of Republicans’ plans.

One major sticking point is the GOP’s plans to use a female lawyer hired specifically for this hearing to ask questions on behalf of the Republican senators. That lawyer will question both Judge Kavanaugh and Ms. Blasey Ford, according to one email from Mike Davis, the chief counsel for nominations to Chairman Chuck Grassley.

Debra Katz, another of Ms. Blasey Ford’s lawyers, said in a Tuesday morning message they still haven’t been told who that outside lawyer will be.

“Please let us know if you have similarly withheld the name of this person from Mr. Kavanaugh and his counsel. If you have not, which we assume to be the case, can you please explain the disparate treatment?” she wrote. “Please also advise whether Mr. Kavanaugh and his counsel have been given an opportunity to meet with this individual. We would similarly like the opportunity to meet with her at her soonest availability.”

She said in the email that Mr. Davis was refusing to talk by phone, so Ms. Blasey Ford’s team was asking for an in-person meeting.

A spokesman for Mr. Grassley didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment.

September 27, 2018. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , . Donald Trump, Sexism, Violent crime. Leave a comment.

10 Red Flags About Sexual Assault Claims, From An Employment Lawyer

http://thefederalist.com/2018/09/25/10-red-flags-sexual-assault-claims-employment-lawyer/

10 Red Flags About Sexual Assault Claims, From An Employment Lawyer

It’s not nice or politically correct to say, but people do sometimes lie to get money, revenge, power, attention, or political advantage. False allegations of assault have been documented.

By Adam Mill

September 25, 2018

I stand athwart the streamroller of sexual misconduct complaints that crush the innocent, end marriages, and destroy careers. In the Me Too era, I am an employment attorney in the politically incorrect vocation of defending who must pay if misconduct is found.

My skin is thick, and I do not melt when asked, “How dare you!” I dare because I do not want the innocent to be wrongly punished. I know it’s a very unfashionable to advocate on behalf of the presumption of innocence, and I am often reminded of how insensitive and outdated the principle is in today’s climate.

Of course, courtesy to the alleged victim is absolutely essential to be effective. To do otherwise is completely counterproductive and quickly turns the focus from the facts to the conduct within the inquiry. So I go to great pains to make my questions respectful.

I don’t interrupt. I don’t impugn. I just ask the accuser to walk me through what he or she is saying entitles him or her to damages. We know from cases like the Duke lacrosse team that mob justice can trample defense of the falsely accused.

It’s not nice or politically correct to say, but people do sometimes lie to get money, revenge, power, attention, or political advantage. False allegations of sexual assault have been documented. Even the most pro-accuser advocates acknowledge that 5 percent of the claims are simply false.

When the complaint is “he said/she said,” we should not helplessly acquiesce to coin-flip justice that picks winners and losers based upon the identity politics profile of the accused and accuser. Experience with a career’s worth of complaints in hearings, depositions, and negotiations has taught me some tells, red flags that warn that an innocent person stands accused.

Without naming any particular accusation, I offer these factors for consideration to the fair-minded who remain open to the possibility that guilt or innocence is not simply a question of politics. I also remind the reader that politicizing these accusations have allowed men like Harvey Weinstein, Al Franken, Matt Lauer, Les Moonves, Bill Clinton, and Keith Ellison to escape accountability. Nobody seems to care if they walk the walk so long as they talk the talk.

1. The accuser uses the press instead of the process.

Every company has a slightly different process for harassment and assault complaints. Often it begins with a neutral investigator being assigned to interview the accuser first, then potential corroborating witnesses. When an accuser is eager to share with the media but reluctant to meet with an investigator, it’s a flag.

2. The accuser times releasing the accusation for an advantage.

For example, when the accuser holds the allegation until an adverse performance rating of the accuser is imminent, or serious misconduct by the accuser is suddenly discovered, or the accused is a rival for a promotion or a raise, or the accused’s success will block an accuser’s political objective. It’s a flag when the accusation is held like a trump card until an opportunity arises to leverage the accusation.

3. The accuser attacks the process instead of participating.

The few times I’ve been attacked for “harassing” the victim, it has always followed an otherwise innocuous question about the accusation, such as: Where, when, how, why, what happened? I don’t argue with accusers, I just ask them to explain the allegation. If I’m attacked for otherwise neutral questions, it’s a red flag.

4. When the accused’s opportunity to mount a defense is delegitimized.

The Duke Lacrosse coach was fired just for saying his players were innocent. When the players dared to protest their innocence, the prosecutor painted their stories in the press as “uncooperative.” If either the accused or the accused’s supporters are attacked for just for failing to agree with the accusation, it’s a red flag.

5. The accuser seeks to force the accused to defend himself or herself before committing to a final version.

Unfortunately, this has become the preferred approach of the kangaroo courts on college campuses. It’s completely unfair because it deprives the accused of the opportunity to mount an effective defense. When the accuser demands the accused speak first, it is a strong indication that the accuser wants the opportunity to fill in the details of the accusation to counter any defense or alibi the accused might offer. It’s a red flag.

6. The accused makes a strong and unequivocal denial.

In most cases, there’s some kernel of truth to even the most exaggerated claims. When the accused reacts with a dissembling explanation full of alternatives and rationalizations, I tend to find the accuser more credible. Rarely, however, the accused reacts with a full-throated and adamant denial. When it happens, it’s a red flag that the accusation might have problems.

7. The accuser makes unusual demands to modify or control the process.

It’s a flag when the accuser demands a new investigator or judge without having a substantial basis for challenging the impartiality of the process that’s already in place.

8. When the accuser’s ability to identify the accused has not been properly explained.

In the Duke lacrosse case, the accuser was shown a lineup of photos of potential attackers. Every photo was of a member of the team. None were of people known to be innocent. It’s a red flag when an identification is made only after the accused appears in media and the accuser has not seen the accused for a number of years or was otherwise in regular contact with the accused.

9. When witnesses don’t corroborate.

10. When corroborating witnesses simply repeat the accusation of the accuser but don’t have fresh information.

It is now clear that accusations of sexual misconduct will forever be a tool to change results in elections and Supreme Court nominations. It’s disappointing to see so many abandon the accused to join the stampede of a mob that punishes any who ask legitimate questions about accusations.

These accusations destroy the lives of the accused, often men, and bring devastation to the women who love and support them. Some of the falsely accused commit suicide. When the mob attacks legitimate inquiry into the accusation, it’s a sure sign that the mob isn’t confident about the truth of the allegation. Rather than shrink in fear when attacked, we should take it as a sign that there is a risk that the accused is innocent, and the questions need to keep coming.

Adam Mill works in Kansas City, Missouri as an attorney specializing in labor and employment and public administration law. He frequently posts to millstreetgazette.blogspot.com. Adam graduated from the University of Kansas and has been admitted to practice in Kansas and Missouri.

September 27, 2018. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , . Donald Trump, Sexism, Violent crime. Leave a comment.

Alan Dershowitz: Six rules for conducting the Christine Blasey Ford-Brett Kavanaugh hearings

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2018/09/22/six-rules-for-conducting-ford-kavanaugh-hearings/ceJUeP97WOmIcKquyMIhzO/story.html

Six rules for conducting the Christine Blasey Ford-Brett Kavanaugh hearings

By Alan M. Dershowitz

September 22, 2018

It’s not surprising that each side of the Ford/Kavanaugh he said/she said dispute is seeking different procedures. This is an adversarial high-stakes confrontation between a male Supreme Court justice nominee and his female accuser. Reasonable people could disagree about the appropriate procedural steps, but there are basic rules that must be followed for hearings of this kind to be fair.

Rule 1: No one should presume that either party is lying or telling the truth. There is no gender-based gene for truth telling. Some women tell the truth; some women lie. Some men tell the truth; some men lie. Without hearing any evidence under oath, and subject to cross-examination, no reasonable person should declare psychology professor Christine Blasey Ford to be a victim or federal judge Brett Kavanaugh to be a perpetrator. Nor should anybody declare the opposite. The issue is an evidentiary one and evidence must be heard and subject to rigorous cross-examination, preferably by an experienced and sensitive female litigator.

Rule 2: The accuser must always testify first, and be subject to cross examination. The accused must then be allowed to respond to the accusation and also be subject to cross-examination. In the bad old days of the Inquisition, the accused was required to testify first without even knowing the grounds of the accusation. The rule of law in the United States had always been the opposite. The accuser accuses first and the accused then has an opportunity to respond to all accusations.

Rule 3: Political considerations should not enter into he said/she said decision making. Fact-finders and investigators must take as much time as necessary to get as close to the truth as possible, without regard to whether this helps the Democrats or the Republican or particular candidates. There should be no deadlines designed to influence the mid-term elections. Both sides should be given as much time as is reasonable to make their cases and no decision should be made until each side has had that opportunity.

Rule 4: Everybody must be willing to accept the “shoe on the other foot test.” The same rules that would apply if a liberal Democrat had been nominated by a liberal Democratic president must be applied to a conservative Republican candidate nominated by a Republican president. There can’t be one rule for the left and a different one for the right. The rule of law must apply equally in all situations.

Rule 5: The standard for proving a serious sexual allegation must be high. In a criminal case, the evidence must prove the crime beyond a reasonable doubt. “Better ten guilty go free than one innocent be wrongly convicted.” That standard must vary with the consequences to both sides. On university campuses, for example, the standard for proving a charge of sexual assault that could result in expulsion should be close to proof beyond a reasonable doubt, perhaps “clear and convincing evidence.”

But it should never be “a mere preponderance of the evidence,” because that means no more than a 51 percent likelihood that the sexual assault occurred. Under that low preponderance standard, 49 out of every 100 people convicted may well be innocent. That is far too high a percentage.

What about when the issue is suitability to serve a lifetime appointment on the Supreme Court? The consequences of an erroneous decision are high on all sides. A nominee rejected for a false allegation of sexual assault will suffer grievous reputational and career consequences. But so will the woman whose accusations are deemed untruthful. There is also the consequence of having a Supreme Court justice serve for many years if he was a sexual assailant. On balance, the standard should be higher than proof by a mere preponderance. It should come close to clear and convincing evidence, especially if the allegation is decades old and the nominee has lived an exemplary life ever since.

Rule 6: No material information should be withheld from either side. Each side should have a full opportunity to examine inculpatory, exculpatory or otherwise relevant material that may have an impact on the truth-finding process. Specifically, the letter written to Senator Dianne Feinstein must be disclosed to Judge Kavanaugh and to the Senators. Ideally it should also be shared with the public as well, but if there is any highly embarrassing and personal information that is not relevant, it could be redacted.

Doubts should be resolved in favor of disclosure because Ford came forward voluntarily with her accusation, thus waiving any right to privacy. Kavanaugh too has waived his privacy rights by being a candidate for the Supreme Court, and any information relevant to his activities, even 36 years ago, should be disclosed.

If these neutral rules are followed, the process may end up being fair to both sides. All Americans have a stake in the fairness of this process and no one should compromise the basic rules of fairness and due process that have long been the hallmarks of the rule of law.

September 27, 2018. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , . Donald Trump, Sexism, Violent crime. Leave a comment.

Man Apologizes For Claiming Kavanaugh Sexually Assaulted His Friend, Says He ‘Made A Mistake’

https://dailycaller.com/2018/09/26/rhode-island-kavanaugh-made-a-mistake/

Man Apologizes For Claiming Kavanaugh Sexually Assaulted His Friend, Says He ‘Made A Mistake’

September 26, 2018

A Rhode Island man who accused Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of sexually assaulting his friend apologized on Wednesday and said he “made a mistake.”

The man called Rhode Island Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse’s office and claimed that Kavanaugh and Mark Judge, a high school friend of Kavanaugh, drunkenly sexually assaulted one of his friends, according to interview transcripts released by the Senate Judiciary Committee.

A committee investigator asked Kavanaugh about the allegation during an interview on Tuesday, which he denied.

The man’s name was redacted in the transcripts released to the public but the investigator quoted verbatim several outlandish anti-Trump tweets from the man’s Twitter account, allowing reporters to identify him on Twitter as “Jeffrey Catalan.”

“Dear Pentagon, please save my country from the parasite that occupies the White House,” Catalan wrote in one tweet. “Our [sic] you waiting until Russians parachute in like in Red Dawn? Please help!”

After Catalan started getting attention on Twitter, he publicly stated that he had recanted the accusation.

“Do [sic] everyone who is going crazy about what I had said I have recanted because I have made a mistake and apologize for such mistake,” he wrote.

The committee is set to hear testimony on Thursday in a separate and unrelated accusation against Kavanaugh.

Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford, who accused Kavanaugh of drunkenly trying to force himself on her while the two were in high school, will both testify before the committee. Kavanaugh has adamantly denied Ford’s accusation.

September 27, 2018. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , . Donald Trump, Sexism, Violent crime. Leave a comment.

Two men say they, not Brett Kavanaugh, had alleged sexual encounter with Christine Ford

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2018/09/26/brett-kavanaugh-two-men-say-they-had-disputed-sexual-encounter-christine-ford/1439569002/

Two men say they, not Brett Kavanaugh, had alleged sexual encounter with Christine Ford

September 26, 2018

WASHINGTON – The Senate Judiciary Committee has questioned two men who say they, not Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, had the disputed encounter with Christine Blasey Ford at a 1982 house party that led to sexual assault allegations.

The revelation was included in a late-night news release by Sen. Chuck Grassley, the top Republican on the committee. The release includes a day-by-day view of the committee’s investigative work over the last two weeks since allegations surfaced targeting Kavanaugh.

Ford was the first to step forward with allegations and claimed Kavanaugh pinned her to a bed, groped her and attempted to pull off her clothes while both were high school students in 1982. Since then a number of accusations have piled on, including that of a physical assault and several other sexual encounters.

Kavanaugh has repeatedly denied all the allegations lodged against him.

The committee has interviewed two men who came forward about the disputed assault at a summer house party. Both told the committee they, not Kavanaugh, “had the encounter with Dr. Ford in 1982 that is the basis of his complaint,” the release states.

The previously unknown interviews could add a new layer to the evolving saga on the eve of a possible explosive hearing between Kavanaugh and Ford, though it’s unknown whether the men’s claims are being taken seriously.

One of the men was interviewed twice by committee staff. He also submitted two written statements, one on Monday and a second, more in-depth statement on Wednesday.

Committee staff spoke to a second man over the phone Wednesday who also said he believed he, not Kavanaugh, had the disputed encounter with Ford. “He explained his recollection of the details of the encounter” to staff, the release states.

Both men were not named. USA TODAY was not able to independently vet the claims.

The committee has said it is investigating all claims made in the Kavanaugh saga, attempting to “make sure no stone was left unturned.”

In this regard, the committee has also questioned Kavanaugh about a series of anonymous allegations, including a physical assault on a woman in the 1990s.

The release also outlines a number of others the committee has interviewed, including friends of Kavanaugh and those who know the women who have lodged accusations against him.

September 27, 2018. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , . Donald Trump, Sexism, Violent crime. Leave a comment.

Trump should withdraw Kavanaugh’s nomination, and nominate Ann Coulter instead

President Trump should withdraw Brett Kavanaugh’s nomination to the U.S. Supreme Court, and nominate Ann Coulter instead.

September 25, 2018. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , . Donald Trump, Sexism. Leave a comment.

Here’s more proof that the Women’s March has nothing to do with helping women, and is, instead, an agenda to help the political left

The Women’s March from 2017 had nothing to do with helping women, and everything to do with promoting left wing politics. Although ight wing women were allowed to participate (because it was in a public place), none were invited to give speeches. Only left wing women were invited to give speeches.

Linda Sarsour organized the Women’s March in January 2017. Prior to this, Sarsour had made the following four tweets in favor of the U.S. adopting Sharia law:

Sarsour made this tweet, which says the following:

“10 weeks of PAID maternity leave in Saudi Arabia. Yes PAID. And ur worrying about women driving. Puts us to shame.”

She also made this tweet, which says:

“shariah law is reasonable and once u read into the details it makes a lot of sense. People just know the basics”

and this tweet, which says:

“You’ll know when you’re living under Sharia Law if suddenly all your loans & credit cards become interest free. Sound nice, doesn’t it?”

and this tweet, which says:

“If you are still paying interest than Sharia Law hasn’t taken over America.”

These statements prove that Sarsour wants the U.S. to adopt Sharia law. Sharia law bans women from driving cars, prohibits women from appearing alone in public, calls for girls to have their genitals mutilated, and gives a woman’s testimony in court only half the value of a man’s. After Sarsour made those tweets, liberals chose her to be one of the organizers of the 2017 Women’s March. But any movement which truly cared about women’s rights would not support someone who wants the U.S. to treat women in such a horrible and repulsive manner.

Now in September 2018, here’s more proof that the Women’s March is not about helping women, and is, instead, only about helping the political left: A Political Action Committee which is related to the Women’s March is targeting political candidates who have been accused of sexually harassing women. However, of the five candidates whom it has targeted so far, every single one of them is a Republican. Not a single Democrat has been targeted, despite the fact that plenty of Democratic candidates have been accused of sexually harassing women.

 

http://dailycaller.com/2018/09/24/liberal-metoo-pac-keith-ellison-tom-carper/

Liberal PAC Targeting #MeToo-Accused Politicians Only Targets Republicans, Gives Prominent Democrats A Pass

September 24, 2018

A liberal PAC affiliated with Women’s March is targeting political candidates accused of #MeToo-related misconduct.

The PAC appears to only be going after Republican candidates and includes zero Democrats on its list of targeted candidates.

Four prominent Democrats aren’t on the PAC’s list despite accusations of abuse, harassment or covering up sexual misconduct .

A political action committee (PAC) affiliated with Women’s March is targeting 2018 political candidates accused of sexual misconduct, harassment or other offenses against women.

But so far the PAC’s list of targeted candidates only includes Republicans and excludes several prominent Democrats accused of sexual misconduct, domestic abuse or covering up harassment.

The Enough Is Enough Voter Project launched on Monday to “end a culture that protects the careers of powerful men who abuse women or other survivors, and put this issue before the voters,” Stanford Law School professor Michele Dauber said in an announcement on Monday.

Dauber, who specializes in feminist, gender and sexuality studies, launched the PAC in coordination with the Women’s March Sister Network and Feminist Majority, a pair of left-wing nonprofits.

“We are going to put rape culture on the ballot across the country,” Dauber said.

Dauber’s group has currently singled out five candidates, two at the congressional level and three at the state level, for defeat in the 2018 elections. All five are Republicans.

One targeted candidate, Minnesota Rep. Jason Lewis, has not been accused of abuse or sexual misconduct, or of covering either abuse or misconduct. Lewis is on the list because he “has a long history of making misogynistic and demeaning statements about women,” Dauber’s group explains.

North Carolina congressional candidate Steve Von Loor is on the list because his ex-wife accused him of domestic abuse, including verbal abuse and pushing her, according to Enough Is Enough.

Left off of the PAC’s list are at least four prominent Democrats accused of either abuse, sexual misconduct or covering up misconduct.

Delaware Sen. Tom Carper admitted in a 1998 interview that he slapped his ex-wife in the face, leaving her with a black eye. Carper is up for re-election in November and won the party’s nomination on Sept. 6.

Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison, the Democratic nominee for Minnesota attorney general, has been accused of emotional or physical abuse by two women.

One of those women, Karen Monahan, said Ellison was also physically abusive. She released a medical document on Sept. 19 showing she told her doctor in Nov. 2017 about Ellison’s alleged and physical abuse.

Ellison, the deputy chair of the Democratic National Committee, denies the allegations against him.

California congressional candidate Gil Cisneros was accused of sexual harassment by a fellow Democrat. UltraViolet, a left-wing feminist organization, previously slammed the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee for not withdrawing its support of Cisneros.

New York Rep. Gregory Meeks, who is running for re-election, was accused of firing one of his staffers after she reported being sexually harassed by one of his campaign donors. The House used taxpayer dollars to settle the staffer’s lawsuit against Meeks.

All four Democrats denied the allegations against them.

“Although we did not target any Dems during this general cycle, we plan to do so during the next primary season. In addition if you watch the video that rolls on our main page you will see many dems who are featured there, including Sawyer, Persky, Daylin Leach and Eric Schneiderman,” Dauber said in an email to TheDCNF after this article was published.

When asked why her group would only target Democratic politicians in primaries — but not general elections — next cycle, Dauber replied: “We think that’s the best way to achieve our goals at this time given the limited resources of a start-up.”

September 25, 2018. Tags: , , , , . Islamization, Sexism. Leave a comment.

Why is the New York government hiding the name of a woman who admitted that she had falsely accused two men of rape after her false accusation caused them to spend 26 and 11 years in prison?

I recently came across this New York Times article from May of this year.

It says that two innocent men were falsely accused of rape, and were convicted largely based on the testimony of the alleged victim.

One of the innocent men spent 26 years in prison. The other innocent man spent 11 years in prison.

The woman now says that the rape “never happened.”

The New York Times article says that the government of New York has not identified the woman.

Why is the New York government hiding the name of this woman who admitted that she had falsely accused two men of rape after her false accusation caused them to spend 26 and 11 years in prison?

And why hasn’t she been prosecuted for these false accusations?

September 23, 2018. Tags: , , , . Sexism, Violent crime. 1 comment.

Academic journal caves in to social justice warriors who demanded censorship of a scientific paper

This is first paragraph of wikipedia’s article on something known as the “variability hypothesis”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variability_hypothesis

Variability hypothesis

The variability hypothesis , also the Greater Male Variability Hypothesis, is the hypothesis that males display greater variability in traits than females do. It has often been discussed in relation to cognitive ability, where it has been observed that human males are more likely than females to have very high or very low intelligence. The sex-difference in the variability of intelligence has been discussed since at least Charles Darwin. Sex-differences in variability are present in many abilities and traits – including physical, psychological and genetic ones. It is not only found in humans but in other sexually-selected species as well.

Either the variability hypothesis is true, or it is false.

The only way to know is to do research.

On August 28, 2018, Theodore P. Hill, a retired professor of mathematics at Georgia Institute of Technology, published a scientific paper titled “An Evolutionary Theory for the Variability Hypothesis,” which supported the variability hypothesis.

The paper has been put online here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.04184.pdf

And here is an archive of that same link: https://web.archive.org/web/20180910143245/https://arxiv.org/pdf/1703.04184.pdf

Social justice accused an academic journal of sexism for publishing the paper. The journal acted very cowardly and has since rescinded the publication. Since the journal still owns the copyright, other academic journals are not allowed to publish it.

Censoring the paper has caused it to become far more popular than it otherwise would have been. Apparently, social justice warriors either don’t know about, don’t care about, or don’t understand the Streisand effect.

September 11, 2018. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Education, Math, Political correctness, Science, Sexism, Social justice warriors. Leave a comment.

Linda Sarsour’s favorite country arrests seven feminists for speaking out against Sharia law. They could get the death penalty.

Linda Sarsour organized the Women’s March in January 2017.

Sarsour made this tweet, which says the following:

“10 weeks of PAID maternity leave in Saudi Arabia. Yes PAID. And ur worrying about women driving. Puts us to shame.”

She also made this tweet, which says:

“shariah law is reasonable and once u read into the details it makes a lot of sense. People just know the basics”

and this tweet, which says:

“You’ll know when you’re living under Sharia Law if suddenly all your loans & credit cards become interest free. Sound nice, doesn’t it?”

and this tweet, which says:

“If you are still paying interest than Sharia Law hasn’t taken over America.”

These statement’s prove that Sarsour wants the U.S. to adopt Sharia law.

Sharia law bans women from driving cars, prohibits women from appearing alone in public, calls for girls to have their genitals mutilated, and gives a woman’s testimony in court only half the value of a man’s.

I just found out that three months ago, Saudi Arabia arrested seven feminists because they spoke out against Sharia law. They could get the death penalty.

Linda Sarsour, apparently, supports this.

August 22, 2018. Tags: , , , , , , , . Police state, Sexism. 1 comment.

Attention Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez! Since you have accepted Linda Sarsour’s endorsement, please tell us if you agree or disagree with her statements that the U.S. should adopt Sharia law.

In the video below, Linda Sarsour says the following about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez:

“Alexandria is the hope that we’ve been waiting for.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTq7KlLrREY

On July 29, 2018, Ocasio-Cortez and Sarsour co-headlined the 16th Annual Universal Muslim Association of America. Here is a photograph of the two of them together at the event, taken from this source:


Linda Sarsour organized the Women’s March in January 2017.

Sarsour made this tweet, which says the following:

“10 weeks of PAID maternity leave in Saudi Arabia. Yes PAID. And ur worrying about women driving. Puts us to shame.”

She also made this tweet, which says:

“shariah law is reasonable and once u read into the details it makes a lot of sense. People just know the basics”

and this tweet, which says:

“You’ll know when you’re living under Sharia Law if suddenly all your loans & credit cards become interest free. Sound nice, doesn’t it?”

and this tweet, which says:

“If you are still paying interest than Sharia Law hasn’t taken over America.”

These statement’s prove that Sarsour wants the U.S. to adopt Sharia law.

Sharia law bans women from driving cars, prohibits women from appearing alone in public, calls for girls to have their genitals mutilated, and gives a woman’s testimony in court only half the value of a man’s.

So here is my question for Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: Do you agree or disagree with Linda Sarsour’s statements that the U.S. should adopt Sharia law?

August 14, 2018. Tags: , , , , , . Islamization, Politics, Sexism. Leave a comment.

Using a gun for self defense is real female empowerment in action, and I invite anti-gun activists and left wing feminists to explain why this particular example should be illegal

I’ve posted this meme before – it’s one of my favorites. (I would give credit to the person who created it, but I don’t know who that is.)

Update: Thanks to gdruzek for posting the following in the comment section:

The lady is Betty and the photographs are by Oleg Volk. I hope you can amend your article to reflect that. Oh, and he also writes for the Dillon Precision “Blue Press.”

I used google and found this link, which does indeed give Oleg Volk credit for the image:

http://www.militia-of-florida.com/rkba_images2/index2.html


This article from Fox News descrbes a real life example of the meme in action. You can even see it in the security video at the link (which can’t be embedded here.)

And please note that the trigger was never pulled. Just showing the gun was enough to scare the bad guy away.

In the video, the guy is clearly pissed off that the woman had a gun.

This is real female empowerment in action, and I can’t understand why anyone who calls themself a feminist would be against it.

If anyone here opposes the use of a gun in this particular instance, then please offer an alternative (in the comment section) for what the innocent people should have done instead. And please keep in mind that during the several minutes it takes for the police to respond, this scumbag could have killed this innocent person.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2018/07/08/watch-pistol-packing-waitress-defends-george-webb-co-worker-during-attack.html

Watch: Pistol-packing waitress defends George Webb co-worker during attack

July 8, 2018

A waitress with a concealed carry permit defended her co-worker after an irate customer went behind the counter and punched her, newly released video reveals.

The attack at George Webb restaurant in Milwaukee on June 28 could have been much worse, according to Alderman Bob Donovan, who made the footage public.

I thank God the other waitress had a concealed carry weapon, has a permit… I shudder to think, had she not been there and had she not had this weapon, what this guy might have done,” Donovan told Fox 6.

The suspect, who is a regular at the restaurant and reportedly had been cursing at his server throughout the night for taking too long with his order, came behind the counter and punched her in the face.

Within seconds, the woman’s colleague pulled out a handgun from her waistband and pointed at him until he backed off.

Although the suspect has not been arrested, Fox 6 reports that Milwaukee police know who they are looking for and that the man is allegedly a drug dealer.

According to local media, the victim is back at work and she said the restaurant’s owner allows employees to carry a concealed weapon as long as they have a permit.

“It is sickening to see this unsuspecting worker assaulted so brutally by this individual,” Donovan said. “For a man to do that to some innocent woman, it’s just beyond me.”

July 9, 2018. Tags: , , , , , , , , . Guns, Sexism. 2 comments.

Here’s my response to Suzanna Danuta Walters, the feminist studies professor who complained that “Women are underrepresented in higher-wage jobs”

Suzanna Danuta Walters is a feminist studies professor at Northeastern University. In a recent Washington Post opinion column titled, “Why can’t we hate men?” she wrote:

“Women are underrepresented in higher-wage jobs”

So here’s my response: We should abolish feminist studies. And we should encourage more women to major in subjects that will get them higher-wage jobs, such as electrical engineering, petroleum engineering, computer science, physics, chemistry, applied mathematics, business, medicine, and law.

 

June 12, 2018. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , . Education, Sexism, Social justice warriors. 2 comments.

Hillary Clinton chose to shield a top adviser accused of harassment in 2008

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/26/us/politics/hillary-clinton-chose-to-shield-a-top-adviser-accused-of-harassment-in-2008.html

Hillary Clinton Chose to Shield a Top Adviser Accused of Harassment in 2008

January 26, 2018

WASHINGTON — A senior adviser to Hillary Clinton’s 2008 presidential campaign who was accused of repeatedly sexually harassing a young subordinate was kept on the campaign at Mrs. Clinton’s request, according to four people familiar with what took place.

Mrs. Clinton’s campaign manager at the time recommended that she fire the adviser, Burns Strider. But Mrs. Clinton did not. Instead, Mr. Strider was docked several weeks of pay and ordered to undergo counseling, and the young woman was moved to a new job.

The complaint against Mr. Strider was made by a 30-year-old woman who shared an office with him. She told a campaign official that Mr. Strider had rubbed her shoulders inappropriately, kissed her on the forehead and sent her a string of suggestive emails, including at least one during the night, according to three former campaign officials familiar with what took place.

The complaint was taken to Ms. Doyle, the campaign manager, who approached Mrs. Clinton and urged that Mr. Strider, who was married at the time, be fired, according to the officials familiar with what took place. Mrs. Clinton said she did not want to, and instead he remained on her staff.

January 28, 2018. Tags: , , . Sexism. Leave a comment.

Poll: What should the prison sentence be for someone who makes a false accusation of rape?

A false accusation of rape can cost an innocent person their education, their job, and their reputation. It can force them to spend years in prison. It can ruin their life.

In addition, every false accusation of rape potentially gives ammunition to people who might want to falsely argue that other accusations or rape – ones in which a rape really did take place – are false.

It’s also a waste of the taxpayers’ money.

 

https://nypost.com/2017/12/16/rape-trial-falls-apart-after-accusers-40000-texts-are-revealed/

Rape trial falls apart after accuser’s 40,000 texts are revealed

December 16, 2017

A student has described going through “mental torture” after a rape case against him was thrown out in court because police had failed to hand over more than 40,000 messages from his accuser.

Liam Allan, 22, faced up to ten years in jail charged with six counts of rape and six counts of sexual assault against a young woman over a 14-month period that began when he was 19.

The criminology student at Greenwich University had spent nearly two years on bail and three days in Croydon Crown Court when the trial was stopped in a dramatic fashion after it emerged police officers had failed to hand over evidence that proved his innocence.

The alleged victim had claimed she did not enjoy sex, while Mr Allan claimed it was consensual and she was acting maliciously because he refused to see her after he returned to university.

Now, the judge has called for an inquiry at the “very highest level” to understand why police failed to hand over critical evidence including 40,000 messages from the accuser to Mr Allan and friends.

The messages showed how she had continually messaged Mr Allan for “casual sex”, said how much she enjoyed it and discussed fantasies of violent sex and rape, The Times reports.

Outside the court, Mr Allan said he went through “mental torture” over the two year period and relied on the system to uncover evidence that would exonerate him.

When first accused, he turned to a local lawyer he had done work experience with and said he was terrified at the idea of going to prison with sex offenders and worried about what would happen to his mum and flatmates when he was away.

“You are all on your own. I could not talk to my mother about the details of the case because she might have been called as a witness. I couldn’t talk with my friends because they might have been called. I felt completely isolated at every stage of the process,” he said.

“I can’t explain the mental torture of the past two years. … I feel betrayed by the system which I had believed would do the right thing, the system I want to work in.”

The life-changing discovery was made at the 11th hour when a new prosecutor, Jerry Hayes, took over the case one day before the trial began and ordered police to hand over records — including a computer disk that contained 40,000 messages.

Mr Allan’s lawyers had already sought access to the accusers’s telephone records and messages but their requests were denied on the basis there was nothing of interest in them.

Upon discovering the messages, Mr Hayes said he would offer no evidence in court and would like to “apologise” to Mr Allan.

“There was a terrible failure in disclosure which was inexcusable,” he said. “There could have been a serious miscarriage of justice, which could have led to a very significant period of imprisonment and life on the sex offenders register. It appears the officer in the case has not reviewed the disk, which is quite appalling.”

Speaking later, he said detectives had previously told him the sexual messages were “too personal” to share.

“The defence quickly saw the information blew the prosecution out of the water. If they had not been seen this boy faced 12 years in prison and on the sex offenders’ register for life with little chance of appeal. This was a massive miscarriage of justice, which thank heavens was avoided,” he told the BBC.

Judge Peter Gower said Mr Allan was not guilty on all charges.

“There is something that has gone wrong and it is a matter that the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) in my judgment should be considering at the very highest level,” he said.

“Mr Allan leaves the courtroom an innocent man without a stain on his character.”

Mr Allan’s defence lawyer Julia Smart said she also received details about the text messages the night before she was due to cross examine the accuser, and when she told the court of her findings the trial was scrapped.

Mr Allan’s mum, Lorraine Allan, 46, said the “current climate” means that many people are treated as “guilty until you can prove you’re innocent.”

A spokesman for London Metropolitan Police said: “We are aware of this case being dismissed from court and are carrying out an urgent assessment to establish the circumstances which led to this action being taken.

“We are working closely with the Crown Prosecution Service and keeping in close contact with the victim while this process takes place.”

The Crown Prosecution Service said they will not conduct a “management review” with the Metropolitian Police to “examine the way in which the case was handled.”

Mr Hayes, who is a former Conservative MP, wrote in The Times the case marked the most “appalling failure of disclosure I have ever encountered.”

“The CPS are under terrible pressure, as are the police. Both work hard but are badly under-resourced.

“Crown court trials only work because of the co-operation and goodwill of advocates and the bench — but time pressures are making this increasingly difficult.

 

December 18, 2017. Tags: , , , , . Polls, Sexism, Violent crime. 1 comment.

Juanita Broaddrick, Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones praise ‘hero’ Drudge, Breitbart, slam legacy media

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1r0wITJU5Q

 

November 20, 2017. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Media bias, Sexism, Violent crime. Leave a comment.

NBC almost broke Weinstein bombshell — but turned it down

http://nypost.com/2017/10/10/nbc-almost-broke-weinstein-bomshell-but-turned-it-down/

NBC almost broke Weinstein bombshell — but turned it down

October 10, 2017

Ronan Farrow’s bombshell investigation into Harvey Weinstein’s sexual misconduct was reportedly rejected by NBC over sourcing concerns before he took it to The New Yorker magazine.

Farrow had been working on the investigative piece for the peacock network — where he serves as a contributor, according to the Huffington Post.

Farrow and NBC even had incriminating audio in August where Weinstein admitting to groping a woman, the website said.

Farrow, who has a non-exclusive contract with NBC, asked to bring the story to a print outlet and agreed to return to the network and discuss it’s outcome, a source told The Post.

The New Yorker story included audio from an NYPD investigation while Actress Mira Sorvino and filmmaker Asia Argento were both on the record with their allegations against Weinstein.

An NBC source told The Post that Farrow did not have any accusers on the record while working on the story with them.

October 13, 2017. Tags: , , , , , . Media bias, Sexism, Violent crime. Leave a comment.

Harvey Weinstein’s lawyer gave $10,000 to Manhattan DA after he declined to file sexual assault charges

http://www.ibtimes.com/political-capital/harvey-weinsteins-lawyer-gave-10000-manhattan-da-after-he-declined-file-sexual

Harvey Weinstein’s Lawyer Gave $10,000 To Manhattan DA After He Declined To File Sexual Assault Charges

October 5, 2017

Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein’s lawyer delivered $10,000 to Manhattan District Attorney Cyrus Vance, Jr. in 2015, in the months after Vance’s office decided not to prosecute Weinstein over sexual assault allegations, according to an International Business Times review of campaign finance documents. That contribution from attorney David Boies — who previously headlined a fundraiser for Vance — was a fraction of the more than $182,000 that Boies, his son and his law partners have delivered to the Democrat during his political career.
(more…)

October 13, 2017. Tags: , , , , , , . Sexism, Violent crime. 1 comment.

‘Harvey Weinstein’s media enablers’? The New York Times is one of them

https://www.thewrap.com/media-enablers-harvey-weinstein-new-york-times/

‘Harvey Weinstein’s Media Enablers’? The New York Times Is One of Them

The paper had a story on mogul’s sexual misconduct back in 2004 — but gutted it under pressure

By Sharon Waxman

October 8, 2017

A whole lot of fur has been flying since last Thursday, when The New York Times published a game-changing investigative story about Harvey Weinstein’s sexual misconduct that in lightning speed brought the mogul to his knees.

He apologized and took an immediate leave of absence from the company he co-founded, but that wasn’t enough. His board members and legal advisers have been resigning en masse. And as new, ugly details emerge of three decades of settlements for sex-related offenses, he’s quickly becoming a national pariah.

I applaud The New York Times and writers Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey for getting the story in print. I’m sure it was a long and difficult road.

But I simply gagged when I read Jim Rutenberg’s sanctimonious piece on Saturday about the “media enablers” who kept this story from the public for decades.

“Until now,” he puffed, “no journalistic outfit had been able, or perhaps willing, to nail the details and hit publish.”

That’s right, Jim. No one — including The New York Times.

In 2004, I was still a fairly new reporter at The New York Times when I got the green light to look into oft-repeated allegations of sexual misconduct by Weinstein. It was believed that many occurred in Europe during festivals and other business trips there.
(more…)

October 13, 2017. Tags: , , , , , . Media bias, Sexism, Violent crime. Leave a comment.

Next Page »