“Feminists”: Clinton affairs excusable, but Obama complimenting a woman’s looks is OUTRAGEOUS!!!

You seriously, SERIOUSLY cannot make this stuff up. “Feminists” and other assorted politically correct left wing nitwits have worked themselves up into an “outraged” lather over a (gasp!) some nice praise he gave to and about California AG Kamala Harris. Apparently the compliment was “sexist” because it included a comment about her … looks. First, from The Hill:

President Obama called California Attorney General Kamala Harris to apologize after referring to her as “the best-looking attorney general” during a Democratic fundraiser on Thursday.

The president did speak with Attorney General Harris last night, after he came back from his trip, and he called her to apologize for the distraction created by his comments,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said.

Carney added that Obama and Harris were “old friends and good friends,” and the president “did not in any way want to diminish” her professional accomplishments.

“He fully recognizes the challenge women continue to face in the workplace and that they should not be judged based on appearance,” Carney continued.

[…]

Obama made the comment during a Democratic National Committee fundraising lunch in Silicon Valley.

“She’s brilliant and she’s dedicated, she’s tough. … She also happens to be, by far, the best-looking attorney general,” Obama said. “It’s true, c’mon.”

I’m in the rare position of having to defend the President here (take a picture, leftists – a true Kodak moment) but it’s worth doing just to show the absurd level of hypocrisy we (once again) see “feminists” and their allies engaged in.

First off, the way Obama expressed his opinion on her looks was couldn’t have been more perfect – he praised her first on her accomplishments and smarts, and then said – oh, by the way, she’s very attractive. THERE IS NOTHING “SEXIST” ABOUT THIS!  Trust me: There is not a REAL woman (not talking about “feminists” ashamed of their womanhood, of course) out there who does not appreciate and bask in the glow when they hear such things from colleagues and other like  minded individuals.  Isn’t this “having/being it all”? Smart, successful, accomplished – and good-looking?

“Feminists”, sadly, have brainwashed so much of the American populace on the issue of a woman’s looks to the point that so many guys are afraid to say ANYTHING about how a woman looks for fear of her becoming “offended.” This is insane!   Maybe the “outraged” contingent would have a point if Obama had said something like, “She’s brilliant and she’s dedicated, she’s tough. … She also happens to have, by far, the best-looking a*s of any attorney general I’ve ever seen”, yeah, that’d be a BIG PROBLEM.  But he didn’t.  Not even close.

My only issue with the compliment doesn’t have origins in political correctness but instead the fact that he’s married – and he very  publicly gave another attractive woman other than his wife a comment about her looks.  I don’t doubt the President’s devotion to his wife and family – that’s one of the few areas where I think he’s upstanding – but I just don’t think it’s good form to give such a public display of appreciativeness over a woman’s looks when you’re married.  Don’t mean to sound like a fuddy dud – and I know others may disagree.

Anyway, back to “feminists” and their ridiculous reaction, abortion fanatic and famed man-hater Amanda Marcotte typified the silly, laughable responses to the President’s remarks with this piece, titled “Sorry, President Obama, but Complimenting a Colleague’s Looks Isn’t Harmless” – excerpts (bolded emphasis added by me):

Underlying all this whining is the assumption that because comments about women’s looks are compliments, they must be harmless. Melanie Tannenbaum, a social psychologist writing for Scientific Americanrecently perused the research on benevolent sexism—of which complimenting a woman’s looks in a professional setting is a prime example—and found that the “lighten up” crowd has it all wrong. “Although it is tempting to brush this experience off as an overreaction to compliments or a misunderstanding of benign intent,” she writes, “benevolent sexism is both real and insidiously dangerous.”

Tannenbaum quotes a seminal 1996 paper on the issue written by researchers Peter Glick and Susan Fiske, in which they discovered that benevolent sexism is highly correlated with hostile sexism in cross-cultural comparisons. When it comes to pressuring women into subservient societal roles, think of benevolent sexism as the carrot and hostile sexism as the stick. Glick and Fiske specifically singled out “compliments” in the workplace:

Benevolent sexism is not necessarily experienced as benevolent by the recipient. For example, a man’s comment to a female coworker on how ‘cute’ she looks, however well-intentioned, may undermine her feelings of being taken seriously as a professional (Glick & Fiske, 1996, p. 491-492).

Even when the researchers controlled for the expression of hostile sexism, the prevalence of benevolent sexism predicted women’s secondary status in a culture. Tannenbaum explains that when men endorsed benevolent sexism in a culture, “men also lived longer, were more educated, had higher literacy rates, made significantly more money, and actively participated in the political and economic spheres more than their female counterparts.” Tannenbaum also describes a more recent paper, by Julia Becker and Stephen Wright, suggesting that when women are exposed to benevolent sexism, they tend to become more accepting of discrimination against women. As a tool to keep women playing along with male dominance, benevolent sexism works far better than hostile sexism; no wonder we’re seeing it so fiercely defended.

Obama has done so much good work in leaving a better world for his daughters and all other young women: He’s passed equal pay legislation, put two great women on the Supreme Court and made contraception access easier for women with health insurance. It’s a shame to see him undermine his enlightened policies with comments that highlight women’s ever-present decorative duties—especially when we know for a fact that such remarks erode women’s opportunities and even their own sense of deserving equality.

Insert my eyes rolling here.

Let me translate what “benevolent sexism” means, guys: Anything, and I mean ANYTHING you say to a woman in the form of a looks-based compliment, no matter  how remotely harmless, that causes her little fragile self esteem to crack and crumble.  You see, we helpless things aren’t strong enough to take a nice compliment on  our looks for what it is. In fact, we must be shielded and sheltered from any such remarks, because – dammit – they remind us that WE’RE WOMYN and therefore VICTIMS OF THE PATRIARCHY!!

Back to earth now, isn’t that sort self-sexism? Marcotte and other “enlightened” feminists actually believe that a man giving a woman a compliment on her looks, or opening doors for her, or doing any of the other things gentlemen typically do, are INSULTING to her because it might give her the feeling of INFERIORITY and cause her to go into a fit of self-loathing, and, worse, she might break out in an uncontrollable case of the vapors! Pass the smelling salts, and all that …

Like I said, you really can’t make this garbage up.

What’s really fascinating about all this is the fact that this innocent compliment by the President has generated – and will continue to generate for months to come –  more “OUTRAGE” and “INDIGNATION” from The Usual Suspects than we saw from them when it became clear throughout the course of his 8 years in the WH that Bill Clinton was a notorious adulterer who took an, ahem, “hands on” approach to women—  and who was accused of rape, I might add.    What’s the difference, you might wonder, between his genuinely insulting-to-women actions and Obama’s alleged “sexism”?

Hmm. Perhaps “raaaaaaaacism”?? ;) Inquiring minds want to know ….

VIDEO: MSDNC’s “Cycle” uses young girl to advance #SSM: “Can you marry a girl?”

And by “young” I’m talking 4 years old. Absolutely unbelievable. Via Politico’s Dylan Byers:

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

I really thought I’d seen everything, but of course MSDNC never fails to sink to new lows so I shouldn’t be surprised at all by this.  AllahPundit at Hot Air comments:

The idea here, I take it, was to show that supporting gay marriage is so obvious that even a five-year-old can arrive at the right conclusion if left to reason her way through it. That’s not how it comes off; you get the sense that this segment would have run for 20 minutes, with Krystal Ball nudging all the way, if that’s how long it would have taken to arrive at the favored result. I hope they keep this up and expand it to other hot-button issues. I’d be awfully curious to see what a five-year-old thinks of, say, abortion.

Look, there’s nothing wrong with having a debate/discussion about alternative forms of marriage. In the last few years, it’s been an extremely hot topic. But dragging a child into it is just so many levels of inappropriate you’d think even the dopes at MSNBC would understand it. But apparently not.

Wow.

Update – 5:48 PM: I didn’t catch it the first time around because parts were difficult to hear, but apparently the young girl is Krystal Ball’s daughter.

Obamacare: Wasn’t it supposed to simplify things?

**Posted by Phineas

"Need a navigator, bub?"

“Need a navigator, bub?”

Wasn’t Obamacare supposed to relieve us of the burden of worrying about our healthcare? With the government making our choices for us, with mandatory coverage for all, and with subsidies given to all who couldn’t afford the new plans, weren’t we all supposed to breathe a sigh a relief at how easy it had all become?

Well, if the road to healthcare nirvana has become so smooth and straight, why do we need tens of thousands of “navigators?”

Tens of thousands of health care professionals, union workers and community activists hired as “navigators” to help Americans choose Obamacare options starting Oct. 1 could earn $20 an hour or more, according to new regulations issued Wednesday.

The 63-page rule covering navigators, drawn up by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, also said the government will provide free translators for those not fluent in English — no matter what their native language is.

Sixty-three pages for one rule. Remind you of anything? No wonder they need make-work jobs for their union clients “navigators.” Magellan couldn’t find his way through this mess.

They’ll need navigators for the navigators.

Not only is this farcical on its face, but consider the cost: each “navigator” will (1) get $20-$48 per hour to help people through this morass. California alone has estimated it will need 21,000 “navigators.” (2) That’s an estimated $420,000 to $1,008,000 per hour, every day during the implementation period, just for one state.

Oh, and the translators. Naturally, they’ll be well-paid, especially if they speak multiple languages. Here in Los Angeles county, there are over 224 languages spoken as of the 2000 census, so you know demand will be high. And they’re mandatory: if your primary language is something as obscure as Nenets, and even if you are the only person in the area who speaks it, they have to get you a translator.

So tack that on to the hourly cost of “navigating” our brave new healthcare world.

Can I get a navigator to take me back to someplace sane, please?

via Jim Treacher

PS: A Twitter commenter reminds us that the article also mentions a voter-registration provision as part of signing up for Obamacare. I imagine all these community organizers and union members will be quite willing to help people “navigate” this part. But, don’t worry. The law requires them to be unbiased. (Yeah, I’m rolling my eyes, too.)

Footnotes:
(1) States aren’t required to pay at this rate, but, come on. You think these groups will work for less, or even gratis? I have some swampland for you, real cheap.
(2) And you can bet all of them will be dues-paying public employees union members, too.

(Crossposted at Public Secrets)