Wednesday, July 04, 2018

Germany caves: To lock up new illegals until it can send them back

German Chancellor Angela Merkel's conservatives have settled a row over immigration that threatened to topple her fragile governing coalition after talks with her rebellious interior minister led him to drop his threat to resign.

Emerging after five hours of talks, Horst Seehofer, leader of Bavaria's Christian Social Union (CSU), told reporters he would remain in his post after a deal with Merkel's Christian Democrats (CDU) that he said would stem illegal immigration.

"After intensive discussions between the CDU and CSU we have reached an agreement on how we can in future prevent illegal immigration on the border between Germany and Austria," he told reporters on leaving the CDU's Berlin headquarters.

Under the deal, outlined by the CDU's General Secretary Annagret Kramp-Karrenbauer, migrants who have already applied for asylum in other European Union countries will be held in transit centres on the border while Germany negotiates bilateral deals for their return.

The row had stretched a 70-year-old alliance between the two parties to the breaking point. Merkel said a "really good compromise" on immigration had been reached.

It meant that Seehofer was able to hail tighter immigration controls, while Merkel was able to say that Germany adhered to EU rules and was committed to the principles of freedom movement within the bloc. It comes as EU leaders reached a deal on the continent's approach to the migrant crisis last week.

Seehofer was the premier of Bavaria when his state became the main gateway into Germany for migrants in 2015. He wanted Germany to block migrants at the border if they have no papers or have already registered in another European country.

Merkel's CDU relies on the CSU to maintain power through a coalition, which also includes the centre-left Social Democrats.

The CSU faces a strong challenge from the far-right Alternative for Germany in October's regional election.


Study Reveals What Women Are 'Hard-Wired' To Find Attractive. Feminists Are Going To HATE It

Turns out, women are hard-wired to be much more attracted to male protectors who espouse so-called "benevolent sexism" than men who treat them as equals. And the best part: this is true even for hardcore feminists, scientists found.

According to a new study from University of Kent and Iowa State University scientists, which was published on Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, women overwhelmingly preferred chivalrous men who viewed women as needing protecting. Researchers Pelin Gul and Tom Kupfer classify this apparently "patronizing" behavior as "benevolent sexism" (BS), or well-meaning sexism. The researchers suggest that women are hard-wired to overlook the "harmful consequences" of BS, "because BS mates are perceived as willing to invest (protect, provide, and commit)," reads the study's abstract. Gul and Kupfer chalk this up to natural selection, a symptom of which women have yet to shake.

As noted by The Daily Mail, the research was collected from five study groups full of women, with the largest group comprising of 233 women, and the smallest with 104. The females were asked to view scenarios of interactions from men, which "included men who were kind but in what is considered a sexist way, and men who treated the women as equals and didn't offer any special treatment." They were then asked to rate the men's "warmth and attractiveness, and how willing they thought they would be to provide for, protect or commit to them." They also divulged their own degree of their feminist leanings, outlining how "patronizing" or "undermining" they found the behavior.

"Women find benevolent sexist [BS] men attractive, not because they are ignorant of the harmful effects, but despite being aware of them," the scientists found. "This suggests that the desirable aspects of BS attitudes and behaviors are sufficient to overcome the perceived negative effects."

"Our proposal is that women approve of BS attitudes and behaviors because they are taken as cues that a man is willing to invest by being protective, providing, and committed," the duo added.

And it gets even worse for feminists who promote sameness instead of equality for the sexes: they desire "sexist" men, too!

"Evidence shows that many women – even those who desire [equal] relationships – want a man to be chivalrous, by, for example, paying for dates and opening doors for them," wrote the researchers. "Furthermore, the finding that high feminist women, and not only low feminist women, rated a [sexist] potential romantic partner as more attractive despite being more aware of the detrimental effects, suggests that the attraction may be a mate preference for women in general, and not just for women who endorse traditional gender roles."

Uh-oh, looks like we have a whole gender full of "internalized misogynists." Or maybe it's just biology; and men and women value different things and generally play different roles because — gasp — they are different.


The federal government continues to use your money to promote the homosexual agenda

The most heavily favored and pandered “marginalized” group in U.S., the homosexual community, just finished celebrating their designated “pride” month. And as if Americans were still unaware of their minority status, the federal government did its utmost to ensure the ubiquitous presence of the rainbow. Following Barack Obama’s evolution on same-sex marriage, along with this repeal of “Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,” federal agencies have made a concerted effort to celebrate LGBT Pride Month ever since. And since Donald Trump’s election, how have the agencies responded?

First, Trump clearly broke with his predecessor’s practice and did not issue a Pride Month proclamation. This year, the Pentagon also passed on offering any proclamation. But there were several agencies that did celebrate, including Veterans Affairs, which put on a drag show; the CIA with new Director Gina Haspel recognizing Major General Tammy Smith as the highest-ranking openly homosexual general in U.S. history; NASA joined in San Fransisco’s LGBT Pride Parade; and the National Park Service (NPS) celebrated the month with photos of employees on its website marching in Pride parades and brandishing rainbow flags.

As for the NPS, it’s already anticipating next year: “June is Pride Month, and while Stonewall National Monument shares the unforgettable story of the 1969 riots year-round, this year kicks off a special countdown to World Pride in 2019. This annual event, which will be hosted by New York City in 2019, is the largest global Pride celebration. It will mark the 50th anniversary of the Stonewall Uprising and its pivotal role as the birthplace of the modern lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer civil rights movement.”

That’s just a brief look at how American tax dollars are being spent to promote an agenda of immorality, and to normalize and celebrate pathological gender dysphoria.


Feminists are to blame for women freezing their eggs: Inability to find males who will commit to a relationship is the most common reason for procedure, rather than career, finds study

The viciousness of feminist-inspired divorce laws sends men running from committment

Single women are freezing their eggs due them being unable to find men who will commit to a relationship, rather than to focus on their careers, new research suggests.

Delaying motherhood to focus on work is the least common reason women undergo the procedure, a Yale University study found today.

Most women who freeze their eggs are single, divorced or in broken relationships and wish to keep their options open, the research adds.

Some even freeze their eggs because they would rather be single mothers, the study found.

The researchers claim the reason for egg freezing 'mostly revolves around women's lack of stable partnerships with men committed to marriage and parenting'.

Around 76,000 egg-freezing procedures are expected to take place in the US this year. Since 2010, at least 471 babies have been born from frozen eggs in the UK.

The researchers analysed 150 women who chose to freeze their eggs from four IVF clinics in the US and three in Israel.

The women were interviewed about their reasons to undergo the procedure.

Some 85 percent of the participants were single, with the remainder being in new or uncertain relationships, polygamous couples, or with men who do not want children.

More mothers are waiting until later in life to have children, but pregnancy after 50 is still quite rare.

A woman's fertility begins to decline in her early 30s. After age 35, her number of viable eggs starts to fall more quickly.

Women are born with a set amount of follicles - between one and two million - or immature eggs.

These develop at different rates. Some follicles never release an fully-fledged egg, but each month the ovaries release one egg to wait for fertilization in the uterus.

Most women only ovulate around 450 eggs over the course of their lives, so by their late 40s, most have run out and start to head toward menopause. 

Menopause begins around age 51 for the average woman, at which point pregnancy becomes impossible.

However, even as fertility is declining among American women (and men) overall, one group is having a few more babies than they did in the past: older women.

The birthrate among women between 45 and 49 - the oldest group that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention tracks - went up by 0.1 percent between 2016 and 2017.

In 2013, an estimated 677 American women over 50 gave birth, marking a 370 percent increase over the 144 such births in 1977.

So far, an Indian woman believed to be in her 70s who had a baby boy in 2016 is thought to be the oldest to give birth, though a 66-year-old holds the official record.

Celebrities too, have made headlines for having in their later years, including Janet Jackson who had her son, Eissa Al Mana, at age 50. 

A growing number of women choose to freeze their eggs - which decline in quality with age - while they are younger, use IVF, surrogates or donor eggs in order to have children at more advanced ages.

But pregnancy after peak fertility can come with risks. 

Older women are more likely to develop high blood pressure, preeclampsia, diabetes and heart problems, so most doctors screen them carefully if they are trying to conceive.

If women in this age group do get pregnant, doctors will continue to monitor them closely as a precaution, but they can certainly have healthy pregnancies, and a growing number are doing just that.

Women turn to egg freezing due to a lack of a 'stable partner'

Results further suggest women are more likely to freeze their eggs because their partners work abroad than to focus on their careers.

Speaking of the findings , study author Dr Marcia Inhorn said: 'Our study suggests that the lack of a stable partner is the primary motivation. Freezing eggs holds out hope for many.'

'Most women had already pursued and completed their educational and career goals but by their late 30s had been unable to find a lasting reproductive relationship with a stable partner. This is why they turned to egg freezing.'

'Their choices are to freeze their eggs, hope to find a partner or decide to become a single mother with donor sperm.'

Dr Inhorn adds doctors performing such procedures should be aware of the potential reasons behind women's decisions and offer appropriate support.

The findings were presented at the European Society of Human Reproduction and Embryology in Barcelona.

This comes after research released last July by the same researchers found most women who freeze their eggs are doing so because they cannot find a similarly successful man.

The claim was made following reports that women are a third more likely to attend university than men in the UK.

These highly-educated women, who pay around £5,000 each for egg freezing, are described as the ‘leftover women’ amid a generation of ‘missing men’.

Their problem, according to the researchers, is they are unable to find similarly clever, driven men because fewer males are entering higher education. Dr Inhorn said: ‘There are not enough graduates for them. In simple terms, this is about an oversupply of educated women.

‘In China they call them “leftover women”. It sounds cold and callous but in demographic terms this is about missing men and leftover women.'



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, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here


No comments: