Where Are The Feminists on E-Mail Scandal?

If I read ONE more time about how Hillary - a woman only a few brief years older that I am - is just an out-of-touch-with-technology WOMAN, I'm gonna hurl.

For crying out loud, I'M a woman, and I not only use that technology, I read about it, am aware of security needs, and know that she was:

1. Either so clueless that she is thereby declaring herself incompetent for the job she's seeking, or


2. Lying her overstuffed a$$ off

I tend to believe (2), but - as it happens - there is no absolute need to consider (1) ALSO an option, simultaneously.

Her serial lying is a problem, but not for the reason you'd think.

She's REALLY bad at it.

Today's national leaders have to be GOOD liars.  Her husband was the Gold Standard in this aspect.

The ignorance thing is a concern.  If she genuinely is that clueless, it's hardly a Feminist Triumph to make such a Dingbat the next President.

I see no need for that level of what Steve Allen called "Dumbth".  Yes, I realize that she didn't major in computers in college.  Neither did I.

But - despite having gone to a local college, not a prestigious Ivy like Hill - I realized that a working knowledge of such an integral part of our economy was essential to understand its future.

So, I took the time to learn about technology.  It paid off, big time, over the last 28 years.  I'm too old to be considered a "Digital Native", but, over time, I acquired an understanding that allows me to participate in this Brave New World.  Hillary could have done the same - but didn't bother.

She now presents herself as a ditzy WOMAN, who just "cain't figger out them fancy new-fangled thingies".

She is a profound embarrassment to all American women.

Why Do We Argue Politics?

After all, so few people will change an entire way of life, based on the arguments.

What do I mean?  For many, self-identification is a gateway to relationships, self-esteem, cultural and religious affiliations.  Their friends all agree with them politically - "arguments", for these people, amount to a spirited discussion of tactics and interpretation, not any kind of attempt to put forth the reasoning behind their stands.  OF COURSE, all rational people agree on general principles:

• Abortion is ABSOLUTELY necessary (not exactly wanted, but needed for their personal fulfillment).


• Conservatives are stupid.  Even if they have degrees, publications, or high IQs, they are stupid.


• Religion is OK, but must be tepid, willing to bend to more "modern" ideas, and not inhibiting any sexual activity that the adherents really want to engage in.


• Your sexual identity is NOT determined by your DNA or exterior body, but by how you "feel".  And, although Liberal women would be OUTRAGED by a biological and identifying man in a women's locker room, a biological man who identifies as a woman is PERFECTLY OK.


• Your racial identity is determined by whether you have a single Black ancestor - at that point, no matter how White you look, you will always be Black.  Those people (Southern Democrats) who originated that "One Drop" rule?  TOTALLY racist.


• Money is horrible when someone has worked hard to earn it, but wonderful when they have inherited it from an ancestor who earned it - at least, if they are Liberal.  If their ancestors were Conservative, it is still horrible, and government should punish them by taking it away.


• Power concentrated in the hands of elected Boards of Directors is just one more example of the Oppressors in action.


• Power concentrated in the hands of non-elected Boards composed of family members and friends of the organization, as long as they fund Liberal groups, is just peachy.


• Adultery is:
  
  
  
  • If committed by Conservatives, grounds for firing, shaming, and forced removal from office/employment/any influence whatsoever.
  
  
  • If committed by Liberals - oh, those Rascals!  How adorbs!  Look, a Conservative trying to make Liberals face the same consequences - GET those prudish Conservatives!
  
  
  
  


• Truth:
  
  
  
  • Falls like precious pearls from the lips of Liberals.  Don't you DARE say that they are lying!
  
  
  • Cannot be found in the vicinity of Conservatives - they ALL lie.
  
  
  
  

Can you use FACTS to change these preconceptions?

No.

All of the above stem from an emotional attachment to Liberal Values.  It is a given of their thinking that all virtue stems from their Liberalism.  They are good BECAUSE they are Liberal.  Conservatives are bad BECAUSE they are Conservative.

Although emotionalism is often a trait of women, many Liberal men fall into that category.  It seems to be a trait encouraged by the Liberal/Leftist Power Structure - they HAVE to base their politics on emotion.  If they used their brains, they would be Conservatives.

Jeanine Turner has some advice on how to talk to Liberals.

Really Find the News Depressing

In no particular order:

• The Data Hack - anyone who had applied for a job in the last 10 years or so is probably most at risk, although this breach could extend over several decades of data.  Read here for a short commentary of the problem.


• The therapist who is demonized for suggesting that his patient might spruce up.  Given that the patient was in therapy to try to find a romantic relationship, it wasn't a bad idea (men do tend to focus on the visual).


• The insistence on tinkering with our money - AGAIN. The first suggestion, to boot Andrew Jackson and replace him with Harriet Tubman, was withdrawn when Republicans pointed out that Jackson was a slave-owning Democrat who butchered Native Americans, and Tubman was a gun-owning Republican who didn't wait for government to solve her problems.  South Carolinians might wish that Andy stay, as he was a Native Son, but otherwise, conservatives were fine with the change.  Now, they've decided to boot the non-Democratic Andrew Hamilton - who was raised by an unwed single mother in the Caribbean before immigrating to the USA, who served in the Patriot Army and whose actions entitled him to be classed as a hero, who single-handedly put the USA on solid financial footing, and died because he wouldn't be "dissed".  Maybe they'd prefer this woman?


• George Zimmerman's attacker, who shot at his vehicle, may face life in prison (although, I wouldn't count on it).  The attacker claims self-defense, contrary to pretty much every piece of evidence available.  The shooter does appear to be an unstable Looney-Tune.


• And, just for fun, an article looking at body re-shaping and impossible standards - for men.

Not the most important headlines, just ones that caught my eye.

The Hijab Decision

If I understand the Supreme Court correctly, they did NOT rule on whether the company could hire - or not - based on the applicant's dress.  What they did is decide that the applicant didn't have to inform the company about the need for religious accommodation.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits a prospective employer from refusing to hire an applicant in order to avoid accommodating a religious practice that it could accommodate without undue hardship. The question presented is whether this prohibition applies only where an applicant has informed the employer of his need for an accommodation.

My bolding.

So, the Muslima will still face the question of whether the wearing of her headscarf is a "reasonable accommodation".  It boils down to whether or not Abercrombie will want to continue fighting the EEOC decision.  I'm guessing that they may not, for fear of bad publicity.

What happens now?  The Tenth Circuit will have their decision bounced back to it, and have to decide on other grounds - NOT whether the applicant had informed the potential employer of her need for an accommodation - but, whether the Abercrombie "Look" allows them to reject an applicant who wears a headscarf.

Not hopeful for the outcome.  Just imagine what this means for Hooters.

 



 

 

 

 

 

 

Justice Thomas, as usual, is nuanced:

Unlike the majority, I adhere to what I had thought before today was an undisputed proposition: Mere application of a neutral policy cannot constitute “intentional discrimination.” Because the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) can prevail here only if Abercrombie engaged in intentional discrimination, and because Abercrombie’s application of its neutral Look Policy does not meet that description, I would affirm the judgment of the Tenth Circuit.

More from Thomas:

I would hold that Abercrombie’s conduct did not constitute “intentional discrimination.” Abercrombie refused to create an exception to its neutral Look Policy for Samantha Elauf ’s religious practice of wearing a headscarf. Ante, at 2. In doing so, it did not treat religious practices less favorably than similar secular practices, but instead remained neutral with regard to religious practices. To be sure, the effects of Abercrombie’s neutral Look Policy, absent an accommodation, fall more harshly on those who wear headscarves as an aspect of their faith. But that is a Cite as: 575 U. S. ____ (2015) 3 Opinion of THOMAS, J. classic case of an alleged disparate impact. It is not what we have previously understood to be a case of disparate treatment because Elauf received the same treatment from Abercrombie as any other applicant who appeared unable to comply with the company’s Look Policy. See ibid.; App. 134, 144. Because I cannot classify Abercrombie’s conduct as “intentional discrimination,” I would affirm.

What Thomas did agree with is that the woman's right to sue did not depend on her having asked for an accommodation.  And, that is ALL this decision is affirming - contrary to what the media would have people believe.

 

The More Things Change...

...The more they stay the same.

This is a link to a post by Jay Nordlinger referencing a talk by Dorothy L. Sayers - in 1938.  She sounds remarkably sensible - her views correspond quite well to that of current-day Conservative women.  Funnily enough, in the early days of the feminist movement, she was considered an icon.  I first read about her in Ms. Magazine - those were the days, before they OD'd on PC nonsense, and decided that Republican women weren't REALLY women, but cross-dressing men who "identified" as women, WERE.

Re: who is a woman - I felt as though I'd fallen down the Rabbit-Hole when I read of the pressure for producers of "The Vagina Monologues" to include cast members with penises - or, as they call themselves "transgender women".  Funny - I thought the definition of WOMAN specifically excluded those people with penises.

Look - if you still have an "outie", you are, by definition, a MAN.  Until you completely transition, there is NO justification for calling yourself a woman.

BTW, it REALLY irritates me that those who originally were men put on a parody of womanly behavior that is akin to white people in blackface - exaggerated, over-the-top stereotypical actions - eyelash-batting, roguish eyerolling, pinkies extended, hip-swinging silliness.

What REALLY is a woman?

• Strong - able to shove an 8-inch diameter sphere through a TINY hole in childbirth.  And, several years later, do it again.


• Fiercely protective of her family - willing to cut the heart out of someone who hurts her child.


• Hard-working - at home, and outside.  Will work incredibly boring jobs without complaint, coming home to cook, clean, monitor homework, do laundry, and get ready to do it again the next day.


• Caring - protective of the weak or defenseless.


• Intelligent - both academically (girls are far better students, on the average), and intuitively.  When a woman says that "she has a feeling" about something, listen to her - she likely picked up on small things, without consciously noticing, and made conclusions - all while doing something else simultaneously.

That is NOT a weakling, nor a giddy fool.

Question for the Secret Service?

If a woman does what I think she SHOULD do, and cold-cocks the Veep, would you shoot her?

I really don't understand why a woman doesn't slap his smug mouth.  I have NO respect for the many men who have seen their wives degraded and groped - in public - as it clearly proves that their boss can "take" their women without protest.  What's he have to do to get some pushback?  Dry hump her in public?  Would these "men" say a word then?

Unintended Effects of Late Marriage

Everyone knows the risk factors for birth defects and maternal age, don't they?

The older the mother, the higher the likelihood of Down's Syndrome and other anomalies.  This graph shows the connection.

I think most families would rather avoid the risk, if possible.

So, why are women being advised to delay marriage, often until their late 20's or early 30's?  This makes no sense.  An additional factor that is skewed in the direction of higher maternal age is the diminished chances of getting pregnant, whether naturally, or with assistance from medical technology.

In this regard, as in many others, the modern feminist establishment seems to act in ways that contradict their stated intention of helping women achieve their goals.