Apparently, White-Males-in-America-Are-Persecuted Is a Thing?

I’ve been reading more and more about this strange phenomenon lately, where there is a growing (yet still TINY — and I do mean “tiny,” too) minority of men out there who claim they are persecuted for being white men, and that white men are at disadvantages and get anti-special treatment. Which I find strange (disclosure: I am a white man) considering that something like 81% of Congress is made of white men and they are by far the majority in all governorships and statehouses across the country.

Be that as it may, I can sort of understand – though completely disagree with – white men claiming that. I had a friend who was a white man and he was denied a teaching job. He had all the same credentials as the other candidate, but she was from India and a female. Be that anecdote as it may (and I only have his story), again, I can sort of understand where some men may come from when making this claim.

What I can’t understand is when women make the claim. Especially when women make that claim and want to give more power to men to make sure that the men are supported against their apparent persecution.

Phyllis Schlafly is one of those women. Since I haven’t written much on her before, I’ll give you a tiny bit of background. She is quite old, and she was quite active in the mid-1900s opposing any legislative attempt to ensure women equal access to anything; among her conservative bona fides is proudly stated that she is “known for spearheading the defeat of the Equal Rights Amendment.” She also believes that when a woman gets married, that woman has consented to sex at any time by her husband, therefore married women cannot possibly be raped (source). Her, um, “advice” is therefore great for conservatives and is often featured on World Net Daily.

In particular, there are two articles where this has come up in the last few months. First is by Paul Bremer, “Scholarly: ‘War on Women?’ Real Target Is Fathers.” And there’s one she penned/typed herself, “New Math on College Campuses” which Right Wing Watch responded to in, “Phyllis Schlafly: Introduce Male Quotas and End Student Loans to Reduce Female College Enrollment.”

In the first article, it takes awhile to really get to the whole father thing. The main thrust seems to be Michelle Bachmann looking fondly at one of Schlafly’s books:

“The American family was destroyed by a combination of political activists, judges, economic theorists, self-proclaimed experts, and left-wing politicians – with different motives that produced the same result,” Schlafly writes in the first chapter.

That’s the short answer, and she goes into greater detail in the rest of the book. To those familiar with Schlafly’s work, it will come as no surprise that she lays much of the blame for the death of the American family on radical feminists.

“That attitude is not compatible with marriage and motherhood, and it does not produce happiness,” Schlafly writes.

She also hates no-fault divorce, family courts for siding with mothers, the tax code, psychiatrists, judges, social workers, and pretty much anyone else (she really seems like that grumpy old neighbor who just about hates everything).

It’s towards the end that the title of the post seems to come out:

“It used to be that when a mom had a ten-year-old boy who was ‘a bundle of uncontained energy,’ the dad would teach him to play football or work on the farm to burn up that energy and make a man out of him. But now our society has convinced this mom to kick out her husband, drug the boy, and let him get fat and lazy,” she writes.

Liberals often claim there is a Republican “war on women” in America, but Schlafly disagrees. Instead, she writes in her book of a war on men – young boys, college men and especially fathers. She believes the feminist agenda is all about subordinating men.

Yup, a war against men. Somehow.

What about the second article? Well, it’s all about snagging a husband. Yes, seriously. Here’re paragraphs 2-6:

Long ago when I went to college, campuses were about 70 percent male, and until 1970 it was still nearly 60 percent. Today, however, the male percentage has fallen to the low 40s on most campuses.

The American Council on Education reports that women have averaged 57 percent of enrollments since the year 2000. Women received nearly 60 percent of all college degrees conferred in 2010.

This has dramatically changed social relationships and interactions among students. Most girls and even some boys do not like this change, but nobody knows what to do about it, and few are even willing to discuss it.

One female student described the new relationship between the sexes like this: “Out of that 40 percent male population, there are maybe 20 percent we would consider dating, and out of those 20 percent, 10 have girlfriends, so all the girls are fighting over that other 10 percent.”

Anybody who understands human nature realizes that this situation changes behavior. Girls do not want to get left out in the cold, so they compete for men on men’s terms.

How does she propose to solve this horrible horrible problem? Quotas, removing any financial aid (not sure how that solves a male:female ratio problem), and bringing back mens’ sports teams by getting rid of one of her failures, her lack of stopping Title IX from becoming law in 1972, which prohibited any gender consideration in sports participation … because, apparently, all men want to do is play sports rather than learn in college, though I’m not sure how they’d have time for sports if they’re working full-time to support themselves.

So, what’s the solution? One solution might be to impose the duty on admissions officers to arbitrarily admit only half women and half men. Another solution might be to stop granting college loans, thereby forcing students to take jobs to pay for their tuition and eliminate time for parties, perhaps even wiping out time for fraternities and sororities. I went through college while working a full-time manual-labor job, and I don’t regret a minute of it; it was a great learning experience.

Another solution would be to reinstate all the men’s sports that were canceled by an extremist feminist application of Title IX, the federal law that prohibits discrimination against female students. The feminists have misused that law to abolish many men’s sports in order to achieve a statistical equality between the percentage of men playing on college sports teams and the percentage of male enrollment in college.

The feminists have abolished more than 2,200 men’s college sports teams since 1981, such as wrestling, gymnastics, track, golf and even some football in order to limit the number of male players to Title IX guidelines. That removes a primary motivation for young men to go to college, many of whom want to try out for a sport even if they are not good enough to make the team.

In the former post, Schlafly is lauded by commenters. In the second, a “troll” (for WND: a sane person!) got in early and got a lot of up-votes: “With the possible exception of “the,” every word in this hate-filled screed is an exaggeration, a misstatement, or an outright fabrication.” The second-highest-rated comment is similar, starting out with: “There are very few who can compete with the raw, longstanding hypocrisy of Phyllis Schlafly. Nearly every word from her mouth or keyboard is against feminism (the right of women to control their own destiny on an equal playing field), and yet she’s worked outside the home her entire adult life, after matriculating successfully through graduate programs, just like her mother, Odile Dodge.”

Corporations Now Have Religious Beliefs

“Corporations are people, my friend.”  –former Presidential nominee, Mitt Romney

The Roberts Supreme Court may be known for many things when looking back on it in a century, but I expect that one of them will be taking broad steps to give the same rights to corporations that are enjoyed by individuals. Yesterday (Monday, June 30), the Supreme Court of the United States issued a ruling that many of us more progressive folks, and almost certainly non-religious folks, had been watching closely, and dreaded: In Burwell et al. v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. et al., SCOTUS in a 5-4 decision ruled for Hobby Lobby.

At issue, to the layperson like myself, was whether the federal government could force a publicly owned corporation to provide a service to its employees just as all other corporations, but against this corporation’s religious beliefs. SCOTUS ruled “no.”

I opened over two dozen stories about this yesterday and today, and it’s actually not quite as bad as I thought. The “real” issue, or at least the legal justification of this much narrower decision than it could have been, is that the mandate to provide contraception as part of the health care plan offered to employees actually conflicts with a 1993 religious freedom law (“Religious Freedom Restoration Act”):

The legislation said that “governments should not substantially burden religious exercise without compelling justification.” It went on to say that the measure’s purpose was “to provide a claim or defense to persons whose religious exercise is substantially burdened by government.” –NY Times

SCOTUS decided that requiring Hobby Lobby to provide contraception under the 2010 Affordable Care Act, against those in charge’s religious feelings, violated the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act. They did not issue a blanket ruling saying that the ACA was unconstitutional, that the 1993 law is constitutional, or anything like that.

Which means that there are two very clear ways around this. First, the government could subsidize birth control for women who do not have it covered by their employer. Second, Congress could repeal the 1993 Act. I think that the former via Executive Order is much more likely to happen in this political environment than the latter. Though they may be trying for the latter at the moment.

So now that you’ve suffered through my legal opinions, let’s go for some linky-dinks (the “dinks” because we’re talking WND here):

• “Supreme Court Rules on ‘Hobby Lobby’ vs. ObamaCare” –Bob Unruh
• “1 SCOTUS Ruling at a Time” –unattributed
• “ObamaCare Decision a ‘Rebuke’ to President” –Josh Ely, Josh Noble, Andrew Ireland
• “Top 6 Reasons ObamaCare Is Probably Illegal” –unattributed

You can get a good idea from the headlines where they’re headed with this, and among the hundreds of comments (435 alone on Bob’s), most are quite pleased.

Most liberals are not. There are many implications, and perhaps the most scathing dissent from the majority was by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. But before I get to that, the LGBT community is particularly worried about the implications.

Top-rated comment by “GeorgiaPeachie” on Bob Unruh’s article tells you why: “WOOHOO!!! This ruling can be used by Christians when sued by HOMOSEXUALS. The Wedding Cake, Wedding Photography and others related small businesses now have a ruling in their favor!!! HAPPY HAPPY HAPPY DAY!!!”

Yeah … now, I’m no “law-talkin’ guy” (lawyer), but it seems to me that if the justification for the mandate being illegal (not unconstitutional) is that employers can impose their religious beliefs on the kinds of services offered their employees, then what’s to stop a Christian-bent company owner from refusing to honor the marriage (and therefore spousal plans for health insurance) to a same-sex couple that is legally married in that state? Or innumerable other things. RightWing Watch has already pointed to many of the leaders of the anti-gay movement saying as much.

With that taste in mind, here are several other articles that have a more liberal feeling on the ruling, generally in temporal order from when I found them:

• “Supreme Court Rules on Hobby Lobby Case: Corporations (Somehow) Have Religious Beliefs” –The Friendly Atheist (Hemant Metah)
• “Hobby Lobby Wins Supreme Court Case, Limits the ACA Contraception Mandate” –The Raw Story
• “Hobby Lobby: Religious Rights For Secular For-Profit Corporations … Just This One Time” –RightWing Watch (Brian Tashman)
• “The FFRF’s Take on the Hobby Lobby Decision” –Why Evolution Is True (Jerry Coyne)
• “Hobby Lobby Opens Up a Minefield” –RightWing Watch (Paul Gordon)
• “Religious Right Reacts To Hobby Lobby Decision: A Victory Over King George III And ‘Subsidized Consequence Free Sex'” –RightWing Watch (Miranda Blue) ——you really should read this one
• “White House: Supreme Court Jeopardizes the Health of Women with Hobby Lobby Ruling” –The Raw Story
• “Dumb Conservative Dudes Weigh in on Hobby Lobby, Remind Us They Don’t Know How Contraception Works” –The Raw Story (Amanda Marcotte)
• “Americans Are Really Confused About Whether They Like the Supreme Court’s Birth Control Decision” –The Washington Post (Aaron Blake)
• “Faith Groups Divided in Their Reaction to Court’s Decision Affirming Religious Rights” –The Washington Post (Michelle Boorstein)
• “Answers to Questions About Supreme Court’s Decision on Contraception Mandate” –The Washington Post (Sandhya Somashekhar)
• “George Takei: Boycott Hobby Lobby” –Joe.My.God (Joe Jervis)
• “Anti-Gay Activists Hopeful Hobby Lobby Will Lead To License To Discriminate” –RightWingWatch (Miranda Blue)
• “4 Reasons the Supreme Court Contraception Ruling Means Less Than You Think” –Time (Kate Pickert)
• “The Time A Corporation Cited Religious Freedom As A Way To Avoid Desegregation” –RightWing Watch (Brian Tashman)
• “The Hobby Lobby Majority, Summarized in (Relatively) Plain English” –The Washington Post (Eugene Volokh)
• “Why Liberals Can be Grateful for the Hobby Lobby Ruling” –Time (David Van Biema)
• “After Hobby Lobby, Right-Wingers Pray Gays Are Next” –The Advocate (Trudy Ring)
• “18 Tweets That Point Out the Absurdity of the Hobby Lobby Ruling” –The Advocate (Jami Smith)
• “Hobby Lobby Still Covers Vasectomies and Viagra” –The Huffington Post (Alexander C. Kaufman)

There are many things in these other writings that I like, and I’m going to quote several of them. From Hemant (first link):

Congratulations, conservative Christian business owners. You win. You can finally legally discriminate against women by denying them access to certain kinds of birth control normally available through their insurance.

Just remember this, Green family: While you’re reveling in victory, millions of young people are fully aware of what you’re really celebrating. It’s not about “religious liberty” because your rights were never up for debate. We know you’re happy because, once again, Christianity has been used as a weapon of discrimination. Enjoy your Supreme Court victory while it lasts because, in exchange, you’re about to lose even more of your social power.

This is just a continuation of all those other times you used your power to make others’ lives worse. Every time you stood in the way of marriage equality, more people left their churches, vowing never to return. For years now, we’ve known that the reputation of Christians is that they’re anti-science, anti-gay, and anti-women. You’ve only solidified those stereotypes and churches will pay for that as they lose members fed up with being associated with an organization that takes joy in denying others freedom and happiness.

The Center for Inquiry:

“This is not a decision that advances religious freedom — it is a decision that enshrines religious privilege over and above employee well-being,” added Lindsay. “This decision defies common sense, lacks compassion, and has the potential to harm us all.”

From RightWing Watch:

Writing for the majority in the Hobby Lobby case, Justice Alito emphasized [PDF] that the ruling, which partly overturned the Obama administration’s rules on birth control coverage, does not apply to other cases involving religious objections to government regulations.

… While Alito stresses that only closely-held corporations are involved in this case, what about a company board dominated by Jehovah’s Witnesses, Christian Scientists, or evangelicals like David Barton who believe “that the Bible opposes the minimum wage, unions and collective bargaining, estate taxes, capital gains taxes, and progressive taxation in general”?

With Congress currently debating the Employment Non-Discrimination Act, what if Hobby Lobby’s owners cited their religion as a reason to discriminate against LGBT employees? Or refuse to cover HIV/AIDS treatments?

The Washington Post, who showed a lot of different poll results:

It suggests that Americans’ opinions on the topic are quite malleable and — by extension — pretty soft. If Americans can offer such different responses based on just a few words being changed in the question, they probably don’t feel all that strongly about the issue or haven’t really paid attention.

That doesn’t mean that there aren’t people who feel very strongly. It just means they they are probably in the minority.

Which means today’s Supreme Court ruling is probably a lot more about precedent and legal wrangling than about the 2014 election.

The Washington Post’s Q&A article:

Does this mean I will no longer get free birth control through my company insurance plan?

It probably does not mean that — unless you work for Hobby Lobby or Conestoga Wood Specialties, or one of the more than 40 other companies that have filed similar complaints. Other companies might jump on the bandwagon, but a deluge is unlikely.

For one thing, the justices were specific that a company dropping this coverage had to be motivated by sincerely held religious convictions. Most companies, even if their owners are religious, are secular in their day-to-day operations.

Also, even before the law, most employers covered contraception, suggesting they do not have to be compelled to offer the benefit.

George Takei:

“In this case, the owners happen to be deeply Christian; one wonders whether the case would have come out differently if a Muslim-run chain business attempted to impose Sharia law on its employees. As many have pointed out, Hobby Lobby is the same company that invests in Pfizer and Teva Pharmaceuticals, makers of abortion inducing-drugs and the morning after pill. It also buys most of its inventory from China, where forced abortions are common. The hypocrisy is galling.

“Hobby Lobby is not a church. It’s a business — and a big one at that. Businesses must and should be required to comply with neutrally crafted laws of general applicability. Your boss should not have a say over your healthcare. Once the law starts permitting exceptions based on ‘sincerely held religious beliefs’ there’s no end to the mischief and discrimination that will ensue. Indeed, this is the same logic that certain restaurants and hotels have been trying to deploy to allow proprietors to refuse service to gay couples.”

Finally, from Justice Ginsburg’s dissent (copied from TFA):

Persuaded that Congress enacted RFRA to serve a far less radical purpose, and mindful of the havoc the Court’s judgment can introduce, I dissent.

… The distinction between a community made up of believers in the same religion and one embracing persons of diverse beliefs, clear as it is, constantly escapes the Court’s attention. One can only wonder why the Court shuts this key difference from sight.

… the Court’s reasoning appears to permit commercial enterprises like Hobby Lobby and Conestoga to exclude from their group health plans all forms of contraceptives.

… Would the exemption the Court holds RFRA demands for employers with religiously grounded objections to the use of certain contraceptives extend to employers with religiously grounded objections to blood transfusions (Jehovah’s Witnesses); antidepressants (Scientologists); medications derived from pigs, including anesthesia, intravenous fluids, and pills coated with gelatin (certain Muslims, Jews, and Hindus); and vaccinations (Christian Scientists, among others)? According to counsel for Hobby Lobby, “each one of these cases… would have to be evaluated on its own… apply[ing] the compelling interest-least restrictive alternative test.”… Not much help there for the lower courts bound by today’s decision.

The Girl Scouts Just Exist to Teach Girls to Be Lesbians, But There’s an Alternative!

I felt kinda sick writing that headline, but, that’s the theme of the WND “EXCLUSIVE” (via an unattributed author) from May 20, 2014: “Huge Endorsement for American Heritage Girls.”

Sigh.

For those fortunate not to know:

The American Heritage Girls scouting organization has scored a key breakthrough in the culture wars by signing a partnership agreement with one of the nation’s largest Protestant denominations.

The group, billed as a Christ-centered scouting experience for girls, has signed an agreement with the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. The partnership was several years in the making, said Pattie Garibay, founder and executive director of AHG, which began in 1995 as an alternative to Girl Scouts.

Basically, the religious didn’t like the “liberal” Girl Scouts, teaching girls how to be independent, not subservient to men, self-empowered, and skills on how to get ahead in the world. Oh, and of course, teaching them to be lesbians and get abortions. (insert eye rolls)

So, American Heritage Girls was created. Because Jesus.

The subject line comes from “makeminefreedom” which has the highest-rated comment on the story with 29 up-votes: “Great organization. Girls need to learn how to be mothers instead of liberal lesbians.”

Yup … girls, remember: Your role is to be a mother (which you get to be by being a baby factory). That’s it.

Girl Kicked Out of Prom Because of Horny Dads

This story on WND comes from the Christian Post and is their usual 3-paragraph snippet: “Dress ‘Too Impure’ for Homeschool Prom.”

The girl went to prom and she obeyed all the dress codes. But, male chaperones (dads) began to have impure thoughts, notified a female chaperone, and she kicked her out: “some of the dads who were chaperoning had complained that my dancing was too provocative and that I was going to cause the young men at the prom to think impure thoughts.”

FYI, you might want to read an actual unbiased version of this story rather than the Christian Post one … perhaps one from Americans Against the Tea Party (wink): “‘Christian’ Homeschool Dads Get Girl Kicked Out of Prom Because They Can’t Stop Lusting After Her.”

Yeah, see, that whole part of it — the dads being the ones pointing out the impure thoughts — is the creepy part that’s buried in WND’s version. Really creepy.

So, because a young woman decides to get guzzied up for the biggest social event of her non-high school career, following all the rules, she gets kicked out because some old men can’t control their penises and so point out that some of the boys may not, either. Yeah, because they can’t control themselves, she is the one who gets kicked out.

And that’s that power of religious: It allows you to subjugate an entire gender – half of your population – because your religion lets you. It says that the woman is the provocateur, that men are just reacting to them, therefore you must remove the woman, keeping her subjugated and wearing nothing but her burlap bag.

And WND commenters agree. Now, granted, “Melissa”‘s comment – which is at the top with 13 up-votes and an unknown number of down-votes and extra up-votes – wrote, “LOL! Seventeen year old boys don’t need an excuse to have impure thoughts. They wake up with them! Haaaa”

I say that we don’t actually know the votes because Disqus has the next comment – the second-highest – with 17 up-votes by “GTHSBB Momma” who wrote: “It’s one thing for women to want to be beautiful, but quite another when they want to draw attention to themselves. This young woman was embarrassed when she got called out for making a spectacle of herself. Her parents need to teach her not only about modesty, but about having the humility to accept a rebuke.”

No, she got embarrassed because she was told to leave because old guys were leering at her. That she was kicked out of her prom.

Most other commenters posted things along similar lines.

Republicans and Conservatives Aren’t Waging a War on Women, Except When They Are

On March 25, 2014, Walter Williams devoted his WND column to “The Left’s Bizarre Arguments.” He began with this reductio ad absurdum fallacy:

Some statements and arguments are so asinine, you’d have to be an academic or a leftist to take them seriously.

Take the accusation that Republicans and conservatives are conducting a war on women. Does that mean they’re waging war on their daughters, wives, mothers and other female members of their families? If so, do they abide by the Geneva Conventions’ bans on torture, or do they engage in enhanced interrogation and intimidation methods, such as waterboarding, with female family members? You might say that leftists don’t mean actual war. Then why do they say it?

Hmm. Ever heard of the persecution complex of the War on Christianity in America, It’s not an actual war, with guns ‘n’ stuff where we abide by the Geneva Convention, so why do you call it a War on Christianity? (In fact, just a few days later, on March 27, Joseph Farah published his own column entitled, “The Answer to Obama’s War on Christianity.” Hmmmmmmm…)

But more to the point, he claims that conservatives are not waging a war – a metaphorical war – on women. That’s interesting. Just yesterday I read this over at The Friendly Atheist blog, “Fundamentalist Christian Pastor on Women’s Roles: ‘No, My Wife Does Not Have Equal Rights.’”

I would like a conservative (or anyone) to tell me who denying women equal rights is not a “war” against women. No, it’s not fought in the trenches, but rather in the torture chambers of the church, home, or elsewhere that women are told they can’t do something that men can do because, well, they don’t have a penis. What would you call that, if not a war on women?

Boycott Girl Scout Cookies Because Girl Scouts Don’t Discriminate Like We Want Them To!!

I think that should be the actual title – once you get right down to it – of several World Net Daily articles over the past month:

• “What!? A Boycott of Girl Scout Cookies?” (January 30, 2014) — Bob Unruh
• “Millions More Asked to ‘Just Say No’ to Girl Scout Cookies” (February 3, 2014) — Bob Unruh
• “Boycott Goal: Crumble Girl Scout Cookie Sales” (February 6, 2014) — Bob Unruh
• “Girl Scout Cookie Boycott to Hit Business Climate?” (February 9, 2014) — unattributed
• “Are You Man Enough to Say ‘No’ to Girl Scout Cookies?” (February 12, 2014) — Jane Chastain

Hmmm. Between them all, I count over 1250 comments. The issue, apparently, is perversion and a liberal agenda:

• PMDavis: “What a shame that the most cherished organizations we have had in this country are being destroyed by perversion.”
• gardeninggal1: “A wonderful organization for girls has been ruined because their leaders bought into the liberal agenda and politicized the organization.”
• Ax2root: “Feminist thinking always hurts children…..women and men”
• savannah1234567890: “Girl Scouts are NOT pro-choice. Girl Scouts are pro-abortion and if you buy Girl Scout cookies you are paying to murder babies in the womb.”
• Todd Little: “When are we going to tell these perverts, to go blank themselves? Boy scout perversion, girl scout perversion, Disney perversion, whats next?”

Yes, readers, that’s right: Apparently, all that sugary goodness and those allegedly wholesome packets of sweetness just go to fund gay buttsex and abortions. Mainly abortions, though. Because there’s a gigantic link between Planned Parenthood and the Girl Scouts, and 99.9999% of what Planned Parenthood does is abortions.

Oh wait … actually, only 3% of all Planned Parenthood health services are abortion services (source 1, source 2).

And, oh wait … actually, the Girl Scouts of the USA (GSUSA) does not have any relationship with Planned Parenthood: “No, Girl Scouts of the USA does not have a relationship or partnership with Planned Parenthood.” (source 1, source 2).

But of course, that’s just part of the conspiracy. After all, WND’s investigative journalism has shown an undeniable link. And, investigations by Catholics across the US have also clearly shown the link. Why, just read this paragraph taken from Catholic Stand:

The denials and deception continue, however. As you can see from a Girl Scout Q & A page, creative wording and semantics play a large role in calming parental fears. Although individual girls don’t hold membership in WAGGGS, her larger troop (through association with GSUSA) does. Although individual dues don’t go directly to WAGGGS or their diabolical efforts favoring abortion and such, each smaller entity feeds into the larger one. The fungibility of funds creates a means by which every individual is a part of the larger picture. Money makes its way from your daughter, to her troop, on to GSUSA, and then to WAGGGS in the form of dues—said money now goes into the larger coffers which fund immoral activity. There, the connection has been made!

The purpose of this blog post is not a thorough investigation into the issue, but rather to inform you that this is apparently A Thing, boycotting Girl Scout cookies because people think that money goes directly to funding abortions. And lesbians. Don’t forget those sexy sexy mud wrestling icky lesbians. ‘Cause the GSA doesn’t discriminate based on sexuality or sexual identity, unlike the BSA did until last year.

And to be honest, I don’t buy Girl Scout cookies. Because I’m fat and I’m trying to lose weight, and because I know that the troops don’t actually get that much from each sale. Instead, when I see a table of them, I flip them a dollar coin and walk on by.

Perhaps the best news about this is that the final WND story, the one by Jane Chastain, was not popular with the typical WND crowd. Such that very few comments out of the 91 support her. The top-rated one, by “wiredpup,” for example, is, “Well I certainly hope this little rage fueled tirade helped you feel better about yourself. Bless your heart.” Or:

• Shmee: “Get a life honestly. Girl scouts is about empowering girls and teaching life skills. It teaches them friendship and how to solve problems. “Guess a girl has to make a living” talking about prostitution. These are CHILDREN you are talking about***”
• AntifreezeTeetotaler: “This article makes me want to vomit. Also, I wouldn’t blame the Girl Scouts for suing for libel after these unfounded accusations about ‘winking’ at sexual activity. Really, all around, this is one of the worst pieces of writing I have ever had the displeasure of reading.”
• Jimcima: “So you want to destroy the Girl Scouts because they offend your politics? What a sad and tiny little person you are. A disgrace to humanity, really.”
• richardwayne: “I am certainly man enough to say Yes. And to say it is the rapid right that is attempting to destroy the girl scouts, and no one else.”
• Tanya Nuncio: “The right can suck it. Can’t wait to purchase my box of Thin Mints and Samoas. I’d rather support a “feminized” group that teaches girls to be strong self sufficient women than a bunch of 50’s stepford wives.”

Those are six of the top-rated seven comments. What specifically was Jane’s issue? Well, here’s one issue: “The Girl Scouts adopted a new global agenda and began bemoaning the fact that the United States has not signed the radical U.N. feminist treaty, the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women, CEDAW, which would force nations to legalize abortion and prostitution. Guess a girl has to make a living!”

Oh, and her recommendation? “Don’t disappoint these young cookie sellers. A troop receives only 10-20 percent of the money from cookie sales, so make a direct donation to the troop. Also, give a letter to the adult who is with her stating your concerns and offering to help her troop transition to American Heritage Girls. I have one you can print out on my blog.”

If you’re interested in more on this, Right Wing Watch has been following the issue over the past month:

• WND: Girl Scouts Promote Prostitution
• Right Boycotting Girl Scout Cookies Over Yoga, Climate Change, ‘Lesbian Role Models’
• FRC: Girl Scouts ‘Encourage Promiscuity’ & Engage In ‘Child Abuse’
• Anti-Boycott Crusader Todd Starnes Endorses Girl Scout Cookies Boycott

Edited to Add (March 5, 2014): Bob Unruh keeps the story going with yet another article, “Girl Scout Cookie Fight Surges,” claiming their boycott is “reaching new levels.”

Why Women Still Need Husbands

A FOX “news” article, written by Suzanne Venker, was copied over to World Net Daily two days ago. And, with a headline like that (“”), you know that it’s going to yield some, shall we say … “interesting” comments. (Warning, G-rating ends here.)

The theme and thesis of her article can perhaps be summarized by these paragraphs:

Over the past several decades, America has witnessed a profound change in the way women view men and marriage. It began with the baby boomer adage “never depend on a man.”

This message resulted in a generation of women who turned their attention away from the home and onto the workforce. They did what their mothers told them to do: they became financially independent so they’d never have to rely on a husband.

In time, “never depend on a man” turned into the full-blown belief that men are superfluous. In 2010 Jennifer Aniston claimed women needn’t “fiddle with a man” to have a child. …

Fortunately, most women come to the realization that they do, in fact, need a man—at least if they want a family.

With that in mind, this is one of those articles that you read WND for the comments, not for the actual article. In the past two days, 54 have been posted (along with a 4.10/5-star rating from 10 votes).

Most of the comments follow the general misogynistic theme and aren’t really worth repeating because they’re expected and uninteresting. Some, however, follow the idea that “both parents need balance in their lives.” Perhaps one of the more misogynistic comments comes from “Dave_Mowers” in response to “AnsonMac”: “That has been answered in numerous studies the only two things that count according to women; 1. Is he hot? (ie. I don’t care whether I am in a relationship or not I am having sex with that man) 2. How much is he worth, does he earn?”

Some commenters blame it on men being disenfranchised, such as “ERSmith” (6 up, 0 down votes): “Tell young men they are useless enough times and they begin to behave that way.” “Lemonjello King” responded (2 up, 0 down) with: “It’s all about commie-lib disinformation, a group of ideas that are old as the hills, as faulty as the worst of any Godless man-made philosophies, and more ready than ever to be retired out to pasture.”

Perhaps my favorite is by “kingdad” with 6 up and 0 down-votes, and why this post is not rated G: “Hmmm why women still need Husbands: A dildo can’t hug you back nor does it earn any income nor can it father a child or parent one. A Husband takes responsibility for his family, a dildo doesn’t. A husband can actually protect his family while a Dildo can’t. The same can be said for Lesbians as they are swapped in place of the dildos.. sarc off”

Of course, we can also blame liberals, as “Notre Dame” did (6 up, 1 down): “The War On Families started decades ago by Lyndon Johnson and femi-Nazi’s who convinced women that they didn’t need a man to raise a family, that they could have it all, children and a career. Then came No-Fault Divorce. Back in the 50’s 74% of black families had both a mother AND a father in the home. What is it now, 15%? It is a crying shame what the anti-family liberals have done to this country. Ever notice that those anti-family Nazi-women are uglier than a mud hut?”

Sexual Harassment Training Is Indoctrination? What?

Sometimes WND publishes parodies. They point them out as such. This one is not marked as such, but the first two paragraphs are so “out there” that I still hold out hope that it is.

The article is written by Walter E. Williams, Ph.D. and an economics professor at George Mason University in Fairfax, VA. His article is entitled, “The University’s Attempt to Re-Educate Me.” Here are the first two paragraphs:

This week begins my 34th year serving on George Mason University’s distinguished economics faculty. You might imagine my surprise when I received a letter from its Office of Equity and Diversity Services notifying me that I was required to “complete the in-person Equal Opportunity and Prevention of Sexual Harassment Policies and Procedures training.” This is a leftist agenda for indoctrination, thought control and free-speech suppression to which I shall refuse to submit. Let’s look at it.

Ideas such as equity and equal opportunity, while having high emotional value, are vacuous analytical concepts. For example, I’ve asked students whether they plan to give every employer an equal opportunity to hire them when they graduate. To a person, they always answer no. If they aren’t going to give every employer an equal opportunity to hire them, what’s fair about forcing employers to give them an equal opportunity to be hired?

Wow. I should just be able to end this post there and be done with it because I expect most of my readers to be shaking their collective heads at this point.

Instead, I’m trying to keep myself awake another hour or two so let’s get in a bit more. Let me be fairly blunt: I’ve mocked sexual harassment training, myself. At CU, we are required to take it every five years. I took it when I first started as a grad student and it was an hour-long seminar and we covered all the stuff you’d expect to. My fifth year, my training “expired” but fortunately they had moved to an online version and after watching slides I took a multiple-choice test and passed and that was it. I joked with people that I didn’t need any training, I knew how to sexually harass. In addition, on my annual evaluation, I have to put down that I have both taken (within the last five years) sexual harassment training and passed it, otherwise I automatically fail my annual review.

And let’s be honest here: In today’s litigious society, it is very, very easy to sexually harass someone. Telling an off-color joke that’s overheard by someone who takes offense – despite all intentions – can be considered sexual harassment. Touching someone’s hand to get their attention can be considered sexual harassment (we were taught to touch the elbow or shoulder in my 2005 class). And of course there are the much more obvious and overt methods that everyone knows.

It’s because it’s so easy to claim that one has been sexually harassed that pretty much every company and institution has put into effect mandatory sexual harassment training for all employees. It’s to save their asses. It’s so that if Person A is accused and found guilty of sexual harassment of Person B and this took place at Company C, then Person B can’t also sue Company C because they can claim, “Look, we have mandatory training in place and we did everything we could!” Without that, Person B is much more likely to be successful if they chose to sue Company C because Company C has not been proactive in covering their asses training their employees.

Without any other information, I would guess that’s exactly what’s going on here. Either George Mason is just now putting this in place (it is Virginia …) or Dr. Williams’ mandatory training has either expired or he never went in the first place and it was overlooked by a former supervisor or person in HR. This isn’t some left-wing plot or indoctrination, this is the university legal team covering their asses against a crotchety old black man who, in his article, starts out paragraph three by saying that he’s discriminated and harassed.

Seriously, dude, get over yourself and spend the hour to get a checkmark on the form and be done with it.

Womenfolk Should Be Cooking and Cleaning, Not in the Infantry

F Michael Maloof is taking a break from warning us about EMPs and how we’re all going to die. Yesterday, he penned the misogynistic article, “Women Could Be Forced into Infantry.” God forbid!

Disclaimer: I know nothing about how the US military actually works in terms of forcing one person or another into certain roles. With that in mind …

Maloof points out the “issue” in his first paragraph:

Military officers increasingly are concerned that few, if any, women will join the infantry voluntarily, because they can’t meet the strict physical standards, but they will be pushed into it against their will if they fail to become a specialist and are left with no other options, according to report from Joseph Farah’s G2 Bulletin.

The jist of the argument (and remember, Joseph Farah is WND’s founder) is that women are weak and can’t pass the physical standards set (for men), ergo unless they take on some specialty role, the military will have to lower their standards and then force women into the infantry.

Let’s say he’s correct: That means women should work harder in order to achieve the fitness requirements, and/or, the military should adapt such that people who don’t meet the most stringent standards can have other roles. Or something like that.

Let’s consider the source and say he’s wrong: This is a clear example of drumming up fear to oppose gender equality in the military and infantry in particular, after a hard-won victory just a few years ago that allowed women to actually serve in all areas that men can, which also finally allows them the same opportunities for career advancement as men. Remember that WND is made mostly of people who want the women to work at home while the man does manly things outside the home — in other words, the title of this blog post.

One need look no further than the top-rated comments. “Black Racism” (lovely name) has the second-highest rated comment with: “Women LOVE equal pay, not equal work (92.3% of all workplace deaths are of men while women pretend they do equal work). US Dept of Labor stats” Um … huh? Please link to your source.

Many of the comments are mocking the feminism that led to this, such as “Ruler4You”: “They want the “benefits” of being in combat on the ‘front lines’. They should be FORCED into the infantry. You want the accoutrements, the ‘promotions’, the ‘career’ advancement you pay the SAME price. No discounts. No coupons. No crap. Do the job, get the results you ‘covet’. No excuses.”

And others are of course bringing this back to President Obama and mocking his “communistic” goals, as exemplified by “stlousix”: “This is all part of Comrade Obama’s attempt to weaken a military that he despises rendering it incapable of defending a country that he despises!”