Tuesday, September 23, 2014
A Feminist bird?
That's Mrs Phalarope on the RIGHT
The sexual dimorphism and contribution to parenting are reversed in the three phalarope species. Females are larger and more brightly colored than males. The females pursue and fight over males, then defend them from other females until the male begins incubation of the clutch. Males perform all incubation and chick care, while the female attempts to find another male to mate with. If a male loses his eggs to predation, he will often rejoin his original mate or a new female, who will lay another clutch. Once it becomes too late in the season to start new nests, females begin their southward migration, leaving the males to incubate the eggs and care for the young. Phalaropes are uncommon among birds and vertebrates in general in that they engage in polyandry, one female taking multiple male mates while males mate with only one female. Specifically, phalaropes engage in serial polyandry, wherein females pair with multiple males at different times in the breeding season.
Feminists Demand TV Agitprop
Indian-American actress Mindy Kaling not only stars in her own sitcom on Fox called "The Mindy Project," she's in charge of it. You might think that feminists would celebrate that achievement, but that would show that you don't know about feminists. Apparently, nothing satisfies them. Instead, they are demanding she use her program to sell feminism, and its crowning joy, abortion.
Kaling committed a gaffe among the Hollywood left by telling a Flare magazine interviewer she had no plans to address what the magazine called "the American right's current war on abortion." Kaling said "It would be demeaning to the topic to talk about it in a half-hour sitcom."
In the article itself, it was a throwaway line. But to feminists, it was a bombshell. Her character, Dr. Mindy Lahiri, is an obstetrician/gynecologist. This apparently demands an abortion plot. They claim it's comedic gold. We kid you not.
Amanda Marcotte, one of America's most obnoxious feminist pundits, insisted, "Abortion is actually a perfect topic for a half-hour comedy because it touches on so many themes that comedy writers love to mine for the laughs." She insisted, "How easy it is, if you let go of the fear of getting letters from anti-choice nuts, to make some really funny jokes about abortion."
Marcotte recently wrote a jeremiad on "The Tyranny of the Home-Cooked Family Dinner" that was dead serious, but abortion is chock full of giggles? Such is the feminist mindset.
The recent movie "Obvious Child" was hailed by feminists for finding the comedy in abortion. A stand-up comedian gets an abortion, and the laughs naturally follow? "You're going to kill it," the comedian's best friend says at the comedy club the night before her abortion. "Tomorrow I am," was the punch line retort.
Back to Kaling, who buckled. Heading into her show's third season, Kaling made the round of liberal media outlets apologizing profusely that she misspoke. Abortion is a fine topic for comedy, she told The Huffington Post, just not for her own show. "Many incredible shows have dealt with in it in a way that I really admire. 'Roseanne' is one of them. I should have said for now. I don't know that that would be the case in the show, and I don't want to lock myself into never talking about it."
Then, on "The Colbert Report," she begged for patience. "We haven't found a hilarious take on abortion that's saying something new yet. But we might. I have faith in us." Colbert tried to pander to his liberal audience by claiming abortion was a "funny word, like guacamole."
The left often insists that artistic freedom is paramount. That is not true. Liberals insisted that sitcoms and dramas stuff their plots with arguments in favor of Obamacare. Imagine the furor if the Bush administration had insisted that sitcoms should address the war on terror, as comedy. What about comedy skits where animals are dismembered, or aborted? The left would never permit it.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, tells you how sick our culture is
Labour opens new front in class war: Public sector staff to be asked what parents do for a living to cut number of middle class and privately educated staff
It is of course the Labour party who have blocked off social mobility by their destruction of State education
Millions of workers in councils, schools and hospitals would be asked what their parents did for a living if Labour wins the next election.
Equalities spokesman Gloria De Piero said too many careers were dominated by middle class and private school-educated people.
She said that, starting with the public sector, the first step to increase social mobility would be to force employers to keep records on the social backgrounds of their staff to prove they were not all from privileged sections of society.
This would involve asking questions about their parents' occupations to assess whether they were working class.
But critics immediately dismissed the plan as an expensive, bureaucratic gimmick.
Miss De Piero, 41, grew up in a working-class area of Bradford. She became MP for Ashfield in Nottinghamshire in 2010 after a career as a GMTV presenter, and within three and a half years was shadow minister for women and equalities.
Addressing Labour's annual conference, she said: 'We talk a lot about smashing glass ceilings, and rightly so. But the Labour Party will never forget about the people who can't even get through the door of the building.
'Because if you're born poor, you are more likely to stay poor in this country than in other wealthy nations.
'There are ladders that can be used to climb up and get on but they aren't being extended to everyone. Good companies already monitor the race, gender and disability of their staff. They should monitor social background for the same reason. A Labour government will work to ensure this is done in the public sector.'
She said this had been implemented for the first time by the civil service's 'fast stream', which parachutes graduates into top jobs in Whitehall.
When it surveyed its intake, just 25 out of 654 graduates were working-class, she said. 'It makes me angry,' she told delegates. 'Talent is class-blind, but Britain is still not. The civil service should set the standard on open recruitment and open opportunity.'
Staff would not be questioned about their background when they were applying for a job. Instead, employees would be asked voluntary questions about their parents' occupations.
Tory MP Andrew Bridgen, who grew up in a working-class home and became a millionaire, said the plan was a gimmick designed to 'appease the lentil-munching Guardianistas in the Labour Party'. He added: 'It would create more costly bureaucracy for public bodies, and would quickly be extended to businesses where it would harm services and job creation. People should be encouraged to aspire to fulfil their potential through hard work, talent and opportunity.'
Parts of the civil service monitor levels of working-class staff using an Office for National Statistics definition that identifies their parents as having routine jobs in the sales, service, production, technical and agricultural sectors. City law firms have monitored the backgrounds of staff since 2011 after they were found to be among the least socially-diverse employers.
A spokesman for Miss De Piero said: 'The public sector already asks about the ethnicity, gender and disability status of employees. Social background would just be another question. It will help expose which parts of society still operate as a closed shop.'
Australian Football League supports same-sex marriage
The claim that football players are queer was once a common joke, but it seems that nature has imitated art, as Oscar Wilde would say. There seem to be a lot of queer American footballers too
The AFL has expressed support for same-sex couples being allowed to marry in a development advocates hope will help build momentum for marriage equality.
AFL chief executive Gillon McLachlan revealed the league's stance on the polarising issue in response to a letter from Geelong woman Sharyn Faulkner, who has a gay son.
"If the AFL publicly declares that they are in support of marriage equality you will give that young player who is struggling with their sexuality the courage to realise just who they are," Ms Faulkner wrote.
In response, Mr McLachlan wrote that football was no place for homophobia, and gave his personal commitment to "continue to speak out in this area whenever I can."
"The AFL will keep saying no matter how many times it takes, that our game does not tolerate discrimination in any form, be that sexual identity, gender, race (or) religious views ... we also support the position of marriage equality for all people.
"This matter is a serious issue for many young gay people, in terms of how they are treated in the wider community, and football leaders such as myself will continue to say that we do not tolerate it, and will continue to push for a change in behaviour from all sections of society."
Ms Faulkner applauded the AFL boss for his response, and said she hoped AFL club presidents would follow his lead.
"The AFL's policy of having no tolerance to discrimination in any form was heartening and for them to actually say that they support 'the position of marriage equality for all people' will make it so much easier for people to say 'if the AFL and my football club can say no to discrimination and yes to equality, so can I'," Ms Faulkner said.
The national director of Australian Marriage Equality, Rodney Croome said that the AFL's support for marriage equality would be welcomed by many AFL players and fans, and would "in all likelihood draw new fans to the game."
"AFL is central to Australian identity and the AFL's support for marriage equality reaffirms that values like inclusion and fairness are central too," Mr Croome said.
Liberal Democrat Senator David Leyonhjelm is preparing a private member's bill to legalise same-sex marriage.
While Labor MPs have a free vote on the issue, the Liberal Party is yet to confirm its position on same-sex marriage in the new Parliament.
While Mr Abbott's firm personal view is that marriage should be between a man and a woman, he has said the question of whether there is a free vote on the issue within the Liberal Party would be a matter for the post-election party room.
Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.
American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of other countries. The only real difference, however, is how much power they have. In America, their power is limited by democracy. To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges. They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did: None. So look to the colleges to see what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way. It would be a dictatorship.
For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and DISSECTING LEFTISM. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here.