#BanBossy? How about let’s ban #FeministHypocrisy?

Tolerance

Yep.

Much hay has been made over the last week over the campaign launched by Facebook COO and Girl Scouts CEO Anna Maria Chávez called “Ban Bossy” – a movement that supposedly seeks to “empower” young girls by symbolically “banning” so-called hurtful words that allegedly “hold them back” from wanting to take leadership positions when they get older:

Can banning one school-yard word really change the world? Sheryl Sandberg says yes.

Sandberg — the chief operating officer of Facebook and author of the best-selling book “Lean In” — is spearheading the launch of a campaign today to ban the word “bossy,” arguing the negative put-down stops girls from pursuing leadership roles.

“We know that by middle school, more boys than girls want to lead,” Sandberg said, “and if you ask girls why they don’t want to lead, whether it’s the school project all the way on to running for office, they don’t want to be called bossy, and they don’t want to be disliked.”

Sandberg said these attitudes begin early and continue into adulthood.

“We call girls bossy on the playground,” Sandberg said. “We call them too aggressive or other B-words in the workplace. They’re bossy as little girls, and then they’re aggressive, political, shrill, too ambitious as women.”

Sandberg’s organization Lean In is joining forces with former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Girl Scouts USA CEO Anna Maria Chávez to launch a public service campaign called “Ban Bossy.” The banbossy.com website gives tips for parents, kids, teachers and others about how to encourage young female leaders.

First, let’s dispense with the myth that “by middle school, more boys than girls want to lead” – it’s simply not true. In fact, the opposite is happening in classrooms all across America as a result of what is now commonly called the “war on boys.”  While attempts at empowering girls starting at a young age are widespread, the push to practically neuter young boys are also going on at a rapid-fire pace … with disastrous results:

Contrary to what you hear in the political campaign broadsides, females are actually doing pretty well. In our elementary, middle and high schools, they earn the best grades, win most of the academic prizes, get suspended less and graduate at very high rates. That success helps explain why women currently dominate higher education, with many college campuses spilling over the 60% female threshold.

Workforce trends favoring women continue to rain down, with record numbers of women in the workforce. Well-educated women living in large cities out-earn their male counterparts. Their biggest challenge: finding equally educated males to marry.

[…]

Here’s why we need politicians to get past the pandering and posturing and propose solutions for the group truly in trouble: Boys account for three out of every five high school students who drop out of school. Boys make up 67% of the 5.8 million kids relegated to special education programs. The likelihood of any boy in special education graduating by age 21 is bleak.

Boys, regardless of race, ethnicity or economic class, are also more likely to struggle in reading. Forty percent of Asian fourth-grade boys who qualified for free or reduced lunch were functionally illiterate versus 32% of their female peers, while 37% of fourth-grade black boys who didn’t qualify for free or reduced lunch read at “below basic” proficiency, versus 26% of their female peers.

Young male high school dropouts are at least five times as likely to land in prison by adulthood than peers who graduate, according to Princeton University researcher Bruce Western, in part because boys who struggle in reading in first grade begin acting out and become discipline problems. They are also less likely to marry by the time they reach middle age because women with higher earnings don’t consider them marriage material. They are also more likely to have children out of wedlock, perpetuating the social ills that plague low-income black, white and Latino communities.

Educational and political leaders have long known the consequences of these boy troubles, yet have done little to address illiteracy and the other underlying factors.

Bingo. We’d rather conduct “feel good” campaigns where words are banned or … “taken back” (like “slut”?)  and wage lopsided,  hypocritical campaigns where girls are made to feel they can do anything while boys are feminized to the point they don’t know what to think or feel and as they grow into adults and become contributing members of society.  Later, these same boys – who have now become men – are told by “society” that they are only allowed to have opinions on certain, select issues, with none of them relating to “feminist” staples like abortion, childcare, and other so-called “women’s rights” issues because, well, they’re not women, you see.

Which is where I call their bluff: Wanna contribute something meaningless to society by banning a word that has been used over the years as derogatory for both men and women? Fine.  Have your little victory.  But here’s what I want in return:   If ridding the public discourse of words like “bossy” because they are “hurtful” to women ultimately makes them feel better about who they are, then let’s also rid society of this sexist notion that grown, educated men are not allowed to voice an opinion about right to life-related issues without unwarranted ridicule on the basis of his sex or … race, a despicable tactic I’ve seen used all too many times in recent history (“all I see is a bunch of old white men in elected positions trying to ban my right to birth control!!” is a common rallying cry). It’s an offensive tactic, not to mention – frankly – unAmerican.   If we were to consistently go by this rule, then straight people in both major parties shouldn’t be allowed to opine on gay rights matters, and white people in both major parties should be told to keep quiet when issues involving the rights of black citizens pop up.

I could go on and on, but you get the point.  Every issue on the table impacts us all – some more so than others, and some more directly than others, but the bottom line is whether or not it directly impacts you or me personally, it DOES directly impact society, and we all have the right to express our opinions without the militant left constantly trying to use ridicule, shame, and other types of intimidation tactics to try and shut people up.    And while radical far leftists do have the right to attempt shutuppery tactics on their political opposition, that doesn’t mean people should back down out of fear from speaking their mind.

Modern “feminists” want people to think they own and control the conversation on women’s issues, and therefore can set the narrative and parameters of the debate.  The only way for guys to dissuade them of such a mindset is to keep talking, keep reaffirming that they won’t let them shut them up, demonstrate the value and (hopefully!) wisdom of their opinions. Men have wives or girlfriends, daughters,  sisters, mothers, grandmothers, and other close female relatives, friends, and colleagues so it’s natural they’re going to have opinions on pro-life issues, birth control, sex education, childcare, dating, etc. To say their opinions aren’t important or relevant on the basis of their sex is to relegate them to the back benches of society, where women once were before the true feminists of yesteryear stood up and said “no more!”

The blatant hypocrisy of modern feminists in this regard is staggering.  If only they’d pause from molding new generations of victim classes long enough so that they might actually be able to see it.

Photo of the Day: Missouri Dem legislator brings crocheted uterus to work

Because oppression or something!


Per Twitchy Team, Rep. Newman was on the floor of the Missouri House today to argue for “reproductive justice” or whatever. The bill she proposed ultimately failed on a party line vote in committee, so thankfully she’s got the warm and fuzzy … uh, crocheted item to console her at her work station where presumably she tries to conduct the people’s business when not acting like a complete imbecile.

Duane Lester at The Missouri Torch blog notes this isn’t the first stunt an elected Democrat at the state level in Missouri has pulled in regards to allegedly trying to “protect women’s health”:

It goes right along with Sen. Jamilah Nasheed saying on the Senate floor that government needed to stay out of her “va-jay-jay.”

One side is debating an issue of life and death. The other is bringing knit vaginas and street slang.

It’s all about deflection, folks. If “feminists” can keep you talking about “va-jay-jays” and crocheted uteri then they don’t have to address the much more serious issue at hand: The life or death of a developing unborn child which, if you think about it, could also be classified as a major women’s issue considering the millions unborn girls who have been aborted in this country since Roe v. Wade, and considering the appalling practice of sex selective abortions in countries like China and India where women are forced to abort their unborn babies if they happen to be girls – a despicable, immoral practice that may be gaining traction in the UK as well.

By why let the facts get in the way here? Please do continue on, liberal women, and keep demonstrating why high drama, deliberate demagoguery, and cutesy stunts are a poor substitute for serious policy debate. Dum dums.

Sen. Judy Eason McIntyre poses with a protestor during a rally opposing the Personhood measures at the state Capitol, Tuesday, Feb. 28, 2012. Photo by Sarah Phipps, The Oklahoman

Previous:

Political chameleon @WendyDavisTexas softens on 20 wk abortion ban

Flip flops

Perhaps Ms. Davis should consider wearing flip flops next time she attempts a filibuster …

Well, she’s flip flopping on everything else, so why not her signature issue, too? The Dallas Morning News reports:

Wendy Davis said Tuesday that she would have supported a ban on abortions after 20 weeks of pregnancy, if the law adequately deferred to a woman and her doctor.

Davis, a Fort Worth senator and the likely Democratic nominee for governor, told The Dallas Morning News’ editorial board that less than one-half of 1 percent of Texas abortions occur after 20 weeks of pregnancy. Most of those were in cases where fetal abnormalities were evident or there were grave risks to the health of the woman.

“I would line up with most people in Texas who would prefer that that’s not something that happens outside of those two arenas,” Davis said.

But the Democrat said the state’s new abortion law didn’t give priority to women in those circumstances. The law allows for exceptions for fetal abnormalities and a threat to the woman’s life, but Davis said those didn’t go far enough.

“My concern, even in the way the 20-week ban was written in this particular bill, was that it didn’t give enough deference between a woman and her doctor making this difficult decision, and instead tried to legislatively define what it was,” Davis said.

Uhhhm, what? NRO’s Charles C.W. Cooke tries to make sense of it:

Sure, this is only a sort of “I support this.” And, in truth, her position doesn’t make much sense. But that the great hope of the abortion movement has been reduced to saying something like this at all is news in and of itself. Where has the great lion of “reproductive justice” gone?

As I noted last week, Davis has taken conservative positions on firearms, taxes, education, fracking, and a host of other issues. And now she’s giving ground on her signature song.

Paging Wendy, paging Wendy. Will the real TX state senator Wendy Davis please stand up?  Rouge red tennis shoes optional …

Liberal college “feminists” develop the vapors over nearly-nude male statue

Sleepwalker statue

The ”sleepwalker” statue.
Image via the Boston Globe.

And they say conservative women are fainting couch prudes? Via the Boston Globe (bolded emphasis added by me):

A realistic-looking statue of a man sleepwalking in his underwear near the center of Wellesley College has created a stir among the women on campus, especially as more than 100 students at the all-women’s college signed a petition asking administrators to remove it.

The statue, called Sleepwalker, is part of an art exhibit featuring sculptor Tony Matelli at the college’s Davis Museum. The exhibit, New Gravity, features sculptures that are often reversed, upended or atomized.

However, the statue of the sleepwalker — which is hard to miss in a high-traffic area by both pedestrians and drivers near the campus center — has caused outrage among some students in just one day after its Feb. 3 installation. Zoe Magid, a Wellesley College junior majoring in political science, started a petition on Change.org with other students asking college president H. Kim Bottomly to have the statue removed.

“[T]his highly lifelike sculpture has, within just a few hours of its outdoor installation, become a source of apprehension, fear, and triggering thoughts regarding sexual assault for many members of our campus community,” says the petition. “While it may appear humorous, or thought-provoking to some, it has already become a source of undue stress for many Wellesley College students, the majority of whom live, study, and work in this space.”

Davis Museum director Lisa Fischman wrote on Wellesley College’s official website that the sculpture was meant to evoke response.

[…]

However, Magid said over the phone Tuesday that Fischman’s response failed to address students’ concerns.

“We were really disappointed that she seemed to articulate that she was glad it was starting discussion, but didn’t respond to the fact that it’s making students on campus feel unsafe, which is not appropriate,” Magid said. “We really feel that if a piece of art makes students feel unsafe, that steps over a line.

Really. The pearl-clutching over this at Hillary Rodham Clinton’s all-girls  alma mater  is hysterical.  I thought feminists were supposed to have thicker skin than this?  It’s a statue. A tacky one, but a “piece of art” all the same.   What is it that makes them feel “unsafe”? The fact that the statue is nearly naked or … gasp … that it’s a reminder of  the dreaded “patriarchy”? Either way, grow a pair, ladies.  There are actually much more important, pressing things going on in the world that you might wanna tackle before waxing indignant over a harmless male sculpture.

Just sayin’.

Related – via NRO’s Kevin D. Williamson:  The Feminist Mystique

Sandra Fluke one step closer to running for Waxman’s House seat

Sandra Fluke

Will she or won’t she?

Via Politico:

Women’s rights activist Sandra Fluke has filed paperwork to seek the congressional seat being vacated by the retirement of Rep. Henry Waxman with the local party, but her team says she’s just keeping her options open and hasn’t made any final decisions.

The California Democratic Party lists Fluke’s name as having officially filed with the party to run in the California district of the retiring Democrat. Two other candidates have filed to run and three others are considered potential candidates, according to the party’s site.

But a spokeswoman for Fluke said the move was simply a necessary step if down the line she wants to seek the party’s endorsement and said no final decisions have been made.

[…]

Fluke became famous in 2012 when she was denied the opportunity to testify before a Republican-led congressional panel about contraception, and then Rush Limbaugh called her a “slut” on his radio show. She became an icon for the left and advocate for women’s issues.

And – for better or for worse – she has made the most of her time in the spotlight, thanks to the strong support of the DNC and their militant allies in far left “feminist” pro-abortion groups who thrive on painting women as helpless victims who can’t make it without Uncle Sam, the “right” to choose, and “free” birth control.

Oh well, even if she does run and eventually win, at least it won’t be a seat the GOP loses.  Trying to see the silver lining somewhere here …

#PPACT condom billboard at school crosswalk riles Memphis residents

PPACT billboard

Video screen cap via WREG-Memphis.

The dodo birds at Planned Parenthood are at it again, taking their “message” too far by placing a condom billboard at an elementary school crosswalk in Memphis (hat tip):

(Memphis) A Planned Parenthood billboard has only been up a week in one South Memphis neighborhood, but some people there already want it to come down.

They say the billboard, which includes the message “Getting It On Is Free” and a picture of a condom, is too graphic.

“I was shocked. I was appalled that anyone would put up a picture of condom,” said Karen Wallace.

Karen Wallace works at a church nearby and has to drive by the billboard every day.

She said what is worse it’s right next to an elementary school cross walk.

“The graphic was not necessary the message was enough,” said Wallace.

A dad who saw the sign for the first time Thursday agreed and said it’s not something he wants his children to see.

“No! It ain’t nothing to send out to my kids,” said Rickey Munn.

You’d think Planned Parenthood would take into consideration community concerns, right? Wrong:

“A condom is not an explicit image it’s just a piece of latex and children see explicit images all the time on the internet, in commercials and in the movies. We are trying to promote healthy relationships and save lives,” said Ashley Coffield, CEO of Planned Parenthood Memphis.

[…]

It plans to put some more billboards in the spring.

A few of things here: First, if you think there’s no way in the world Planned Parenthood (and other “progressive types) would target kids in their approach to so-called “safe sex” information, read here , here,and here for your wake-up call. Second, for “enlightened” types who think this is much ado about nothing, y’all do know this is a bit different than just demanding that someone who is offended change the channel, right? Thirdly, consider the “Getting It On” Planned Parenthood campaign, the “Brosurance” campaign put on by left wing activists that basically portrayed women as sex addicts who should sign up for Obamacare, and then review Mike Huckabee’s “controversial” comments from a couple of weeks ago about how Democrats view women:

“Republicans don’t have a war on women,” Huckabee said. We’re having a war for women. To empower them to be something other than victims of their gender.”

“If the Democrats want to insult the women of America by making them believe that they are helpless without Uncle Sugar coming in and providing for them a prescription each month for birth control, because they cannot control their libido or their reproductive system without the help of the government, then so be it,” he continued. “Let us take that discussion all across America, because women are far more than the Democrats have played them to be.”

Huckabee’s quote was deliberately distorted by helpful MSM journos who later had to issue corrections,  but that didn’t stop the Usual Suspects on the left from conveniently once again trotting out the “helpless victim” card, accusing Huckabee of continuing the phony “war on women” when it was obvious he was criticizing Democrats for how they treat women.  That Democrats got so defensive and had to misdirect and misrepresent what was actually said proves that they know there is more than a grain of truth to Huckabee’s remarks – and the “Brosurance” ads and PPACT campaigns about “Getting It On” just go to show that he was right on target.

PHOTO FAIL: @WendyDavisTexas receives Ann Richards’ shotgun

Wendy Davis

Ms. Davis strikes out. Again.

Just in case you hadn’t heard enough news about Wendy Davis over the last couple of weeks, I thought I would be kind enough to let you know this happened (hat tip to Twitchy Team):


The Austinist provides context:

At a fundraiser for the Travis County Democratic Party last night, Clark Richards, son of former Democratic Texas governor Ann Richards, bequeathed Wendy Davis with his late mother’s engraved shotgun ..

[…]

Davis reportedly promised to “kick some ass with it.”

Based on that picture I’d have to say … um .. no. As Texan Bryan Preston notes:

Greg Abbott also had no trouble with [pulling off the effective shotgun shot] on this Texas Monthly cover.

TX AG Greg Abbott

Nice.

I’d say the Texas AG wins the “battle of the bad a** pictures” hands down – just as I suspect will happen in the eventual TX Governor election should he and Ms. Davis become its respective nominees.

Next?

Related: Via Jonah Goldberg – The Cowardice of Wendy Davis (h/t Phineas)

#SOTU: It’s time to stop the “equal pay for equal work” lie…

Facts

Facts matter.

Independent Women’s Forum managing director Carrie Lukas tackles the oft-told-by-liberals lie that there is a “wage gap” between what women earn and what men earn for “equal work”:

Yet they [liberals] are behind the curve in using a statistic that is increasingly acknowledged as misleading. As feminist writer Hanna Rosin wrote about the 77-cent statistic in Slate:

I’ve heard the line enough times that I feel the need to set the record straight: It’s not true.

The official Bureau of Labor Department statistics show that the median earnings of full-time female workers is 77 percent of the median earnings of full-time male workers. But that is very different than “77 cents on the dollar for doing the same work as men.” The latter gives the impression that a man and a woman standing next to each other doing the same job for the same number of hours get paid different salaries. That’s not at all the case.

She goes on to describe – as those of us on the right have countless times before – that it’s the different choices men and women make (hours spent working, industry, fields of specialty, time spent out of the workforce, etc.) that are the primary drivers of the wage gap.

We can all debate why it is that women and men make such different choices, and whether that in itself is a problem society ought to seek to solve. Yet it would be nice if first we could all agree to stop misleading Americans by repeating this statistic and pretending that the 23-cent wage gap is evidence of rampant workplace sexism. Mainstream journalists are moving in that direction; it would be nice if the president’s speechwriters would catch on.

I wish we could put this argument to rest because it has been consistently debunked over and over again but who cares about the truth when you’re trying to – almost literally – buy the women’s vote via emotional manipulation by repeating again and again the same false information about their wages in comparison to their male co-workers?  It’s bad enough when Democrat politicos keep uttering this nonsense, but the mainstream media also accepts the assertion as “fact” as this CNN piece demonstrates (hat tip):

Working women and their struggles will form a major part of President Barack Obama’s State of the Union address Tuesday night, CNN has learned, underscoring the important role women play both in Obama’s domestic agenda and his party’s hopes for this year’s midterm elections.

During his speech, Obama will call for an end to the wage gap between men and women. On average, women earn 77 cents to every dollar a man makes in the workplace

See? Just repeated without questioning, without analyzing. No attempt made at all by CNN to determine whether or not what the President says is factually accurate. Can’t say that I’m surprised, but it’s frustrating nevertheless.

We’ve also seen this same type of shameless pandering from Democrats when it comes to “let’s raise the minimum wage!” arguments.  Do liberals (and their allies in the press) never learn?

No, Wendy Davis isn’t being “attacked for being a single mother”

Author and New America Foundation program director Liza Mundy penned a piece for Politico Magazine that reads like something out of the pages of the NOW playbook.  The headline in and of itself summarizes it all:

Wendy Davis

Spinsanity: ”Wendy Davis did make a mistake. She thought that we were ready for a single mother.”

If the headline wasn’t bad – and faulty – enough, there were paragraphs like this one (bolded emphasis added by me):

Given that winning political office requires help, it was probably a mistake for Wendy Davis, the Texas state senator who is now running for governor, to insist quite so ardently that she got where she did through her own pluck and determination. Davis, a Democrat who rose to national prominence during a dramatic filibuster of a restrictive abortion bill in the Texas legislature last year, is now campaigning for her state’s highest office on a life story that has her rising from humble beginnings through “hard work and optimism,” as she told NBC, then pursuing higher education, as her campaign website says, with “the help of academic scholarships, student loans, and state and federal grants.” Now that she is in a high-profile and hotly partisan race, it has come out that she also benefited from the moral and financial support of her second (now ex) husband, Jeff Davis. In the process, though, behavior we would expect and hardly notice in a man is being portrayed as freakish and problematic in a woman.

This is so far from the truth and reality that it almost defies logic. And unfortunately, this interpretation is making the rounds among some writers I respect, like Democrat Kirsten Powers.   Let’s clear up any misunderstanding/spin that exists out there over why conservatives and Republicans have jumped on this story: it’s because she made her life story her campaign story and .. well, she lied about it - as I wrote earlier this week:

Quite frankly, I could have done without knowing the details of Wendy Davis’ relationship and eventual divorce from her ex-husband, and seeing as I don’t know them and wasn’t in the situation, I’m not going to make a judgement call on whether or not it was the right thing to do for her to leave her children with her ex-husband after the divorce so she could ‘find herself.’  What bothers me about these details is that they are in direct conflict with the “going it alone, running against the wind, paid my way through college while single-handedly raising a family” compelling story she tells when she tours the media and campaign circuit.    In contrast to the narrative she and the MSM  have enabled, she had plenty of financial support – especially while at Harvard – and had someone who could take care of the kids while she found her way in the world.   Not a lot of women can make that same claim. In fact, I suspect many of the people – men and women – who attended Harvard at the same time Wendy Davis did are STILL paying off their student loans because they had to work, possibly more than one job, and still come home and tend to family. Her then-husband took out a loan to pay for her Harvard education and took care of the kids while she was away, and did so even after they were divorced. This is not what Wendy Davis  has told people on the trail.

When I think of a single mother overcoming the odds I think of one who really does struggle – and there are many out there whose story matched the initial “going it alone” one Wendy Davis told but which don’t match the actual “she had a lot of help” version, the one she barely ever talked about even in the abstract.  Wendy Davis tried to gain traction with female voters – in particular ones who really did have to go it alone in life with their children for whatever reason  – by insinuating she can relate to those who had to put themselves through school without any help from anyone.  She had help. A lot of it. A husband with a six figure salary and a nice 401k to draw from. And who took care of her children when she left for Harvard.  Nothing wrong with that – except for the fact that she wasn’t up front with voters about it.

Not only that, but worse – she’s used her “single motherhood” story to advance her belief that abortion is ok.  Some women get pregnant by accident, you see, and it would be awfully tough financially to raise that child – especially if she already has other mouths to feed – so abortion should be an option, according to Wendy Davis, to “take care of” that inconvenient “issue.”

There are so many layers to why what she’s said and done on the campaign trail about her life story was so wrong, and it has nothing – zip, zilch, nada – about the fact that people weren’t and aren’t willing to “accept a single mother” in public office.  Wendy Davis painted herself as a long struggling single mother before we knew the full story, and many of us – including me, and even TX Governor Perry – picked up on that story of struggling single motherhood as one of inspiration, noting that, in contrast as to how she was using it to advance the pro-choice narratives about single women and abortion, that she could use it to inspire women thinking about terminating their unborn child’s life to instead  make the choice to have the baby – that the odds could be overcome with hard work and the determination to succeed.  Many of us – people who supported her and people like me who don’t – went with what she said and took her at face value, and didn’t once think the single mother issue was even an issue at all.

With that in mind, it’s fascinating that the defenders of Ms. Davis over the Dallas Morning News story are doing so on the basis that the right “can’t accept” a single mother in office – in spite of the fact that the story written about Ms. Davis didn’t really portray her as a single mother at all.   What’s at issue here is that “the right” can’t accept a woman – single or not – using an embellished tale about struggling single motherhood in order to try and “relate” to and win over women who really have had a tough road raising their kids by themselves. And “the right” especially can’t accept a woman who uses that same embellished story to argue that it’s ok in those situations to have an abortion.

As to Kirsten Powers assertion that Davis is being held to a standard “no man” would “ever” be held to,  she does remember how Barack Obama was elected to the US Senate, right?

No, Ms. Davis is not a “victim” of the “misogynist right.” Ms. Davis is a victim of her own contradictory words coming back to bite her thanks to – gasp – actual scrutiny, for a change, from a mainstream media journalist unwilling to accept at face value her narrative about her life story.  If only we’d had more such journos back during the 2007-2008 Democrat presidential primary season …