Wednesday, May 22, 2019

Men are afraid to mentor women after #MeToo and it hurts us all: study

Feminist excesses are hurting women.  For their own safety from accusations, men now often avoid women. Women now get avoidance rather than help and acceptance. Frozen politenes is often now all they will get and SurveyMonkey’s new #MentorHer poll reveals Friday that 60% of male managers report feeling “too nervous” about being accused of harassment to interact with women in “common workplace” activities such as mentoring, socializing and one-on-one meetings.

That’s a 32% spike from 2018, with an additional 36% of men saying they now actively avoid women in junior-level positions — effectively chopping down their shot at climbing the corporate ladder.

“The vast majority of managers and senior leaders are men,” says Sheryl Sandberg, Facebook COO and founder of, in a statement. “If they are reluctant even to meet one-on-one with women, there’s no way women can get an equal shot at proving themselves.”

Widening the gender gap is actually an abuse of power, she says.

“We’re in a bad place — no one’s ever gotten promoted without a one-on-one meeting, I feel confident in saying that,” Sandberg tells “CBS This Morning” host Gayle King Friday. “Senior men right now are nine times more hesitant to travel with a woman and six times more likely to hesitate to have a work dinner.”

Women — and especially women of color — don’t get the same amount of mentoring as men, “which means we’re not getting an equal seat at the table,” Sandberg says. “It’s not enough to not harass us, you need to not ignore us, either.”

The study reports that the fear factor grew in concurrence with the rise of the massive #MeToo social media movement founded by activist Tarana Burke and fueled by a torrent of models and actresses accusing Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby of sexual harassment and assault.

In the last three years, scores of women — and some high-profile men, such as actors Terry Crews and Anthony Rapp — came forward to voice their experiences with harassment by people in positions of power.

Now Sandberg says it’s time for men to “step up” and “redefine what it means to be a good guy at work” — before it costs us all a whole lot of cold hard cash.

“There’s not a company in the world that can afford to leave talent on the sidelines because it’s female,” she says. “But that’s what will keep happening unless all of us — especially men — commit to doing better.”


Missouri House approves 8-week abortion ban, sending it to governor’s desk

Missouri Senate advances bill to ban abortions in the state
Ban would block women from receiving procedure at 8 weeks into pregnancy.

The Missouri House on Friday approved a restrictive abortion bill that would ban abortions after the eighth week of pregnancy -- one of a slew of similar bills in red states that have sparked a heated national debate on abortion rights.

The bill was passed by the Senate on Thursday, and now with approval from the House goes to Republican Gov. Mike Parson, who is expected to sign it.

The legislation would make Missouri one of the most restrictive states in the country for abortions. The bill includes exceptions for medical emergencies, but not for rape and incest. It also bans abortions based solely on race, sex or a diagnosis of potential Down Syndrome.

While women who have an abortion would not be prosecuted under the legislation, doctors could face as much as 15 years in prison for performing an abortion at eight weeks and beyond. Democrats opposed to the bill attacked the legislation in blistering terms.

"Laundry, bleach, acid bitter, concoction, knitting needles, bicycle spokes, ballpoint pens, jumping from the top of the stairs or the roof," Democratic Rep. Sarah Unsicker said. "These are ways that women around the world who don't have access to legal abortions perform their own."

The bill’s passage in the House comes after Alabama Gov. Kay Ivey signed a law Wednesday that would outlaw almost all abortions, making performing one punishable by up to 99 years in prison unless the mother’s health is at risk. That law, too, did not grant exemptions in cases of rape or incest.

Alabama passes strictest abortion ban in the countryVideo
"This legislation stands as a powerful testament to Alabamians’ deeply held belief that every life is precious and that every life is a sacred gift from God," Ivey said in a statement.

In Georgia, Gov. Brian Kemp this month signed a “heartbeat” bill into law that prohibits abortions in the state after a heartbeat is detected, as early as six weeks into a pregnancy. That bill does allow exceptions in case of rape, incest and if the life of the mother is in danger.

"Georgia is a state that values life," Kemp said before putting his signature to the LIFE Act. "We stand up for those who are unable to speak for themselves."

The bills mark the latest shots in a looming fight over the legacy of Roe v Wade. The Alabama bill was written in part to reignite the battle over the controversial 1973 Supreme Court decision that legalized abortion across the country. Ivey noted that the bill is unenforceable because of Roe v. Wade and won’t come into force unless it is overturned.

Kentucky, Mississippi and Ohio have also approved abortion bans once a heartbeat can be detected. Laws in North Dakota and Iowa have been struck down by the courts. Some conservatives hope that, with the Supreme Court having shifted to the right in light of the recent appointments of Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, there is now a chance the court will revisit Roe and overturn it.

But GOP Rep. Nick Schroer said the Missouri bill is "made to withstand judicial challenges and not cause them."

"While others are zeroing in on ways to overturn Roe v. Wade and navigate the courts as quickly as possible, that is not our goal," Schroer said. "However, if and when that fight comes we will be fully ready. This legislation has one goal, and that goal is to save lives."

Planned Parenthood Action Fund President Leana Wen on Thursday accused Gov. Parson of riding the "disgraceful coattails of 25 white men in Alabama who just voted to ban safe, legal abortion.”

If the courts don’t allow Missouri’s legislation to take effect, it includes a series of less-restrictive time limits (14, 18 and 20 weeks) that may be more likely to win favor with the courts.


Transgender Transformation: Even some radical feminists are realizing the danger to women posed by transgenderism

It’s been often noted, and rightly so, that transgenderism is not a meaningful scientific or medical area of study, but rather a political ideology with specific goals in mind that do not fit into any respected category of scientific thought. Those who support transgenderism — the idea that men and women can be born with a body and a brain that are of opposite genders — do not adhere to medical or biological facts, and worse still, they do not seek discussion or debate about the issue of gender “misidentity,” only blind adherence to their dogma.

The rise of this transgender ideology has been extremely harmful to our society. It puts young girls at risk because transgenderism says that men who identify as women should be allowed to use female bathrooms, locker rooms, and other personal spaces. It has thrown conventional society into complete disarray by arbitrarily changing standard gender definitions in education, commerce, sports, and entertainment.

Worst of all, transgenderism is harming the very people it purports to protect, those who are actually suffering from gender dysphoria. Transgenderism rejects the idea of psychological counseling for those wrestling with gender “identity,” opting instead to affirm their condition and let them go through the costly, dangerous, and harmful process of sexual reassignment. A process, by the way, that is just as likely to lead patients to suicide or self-destructive depression as they would be by being left unmutiliated.

The “transgender” community counts on bullying the opposition to keep the facts from coming out about gender dysphoria. Instead of treating it as a medical condition, leftists have latched onto this issue as one more way of tearing down our society, smashing our nuclear families, and deconstructing traditional gender concepts. They have found many in the media and even in the medical community to be their useful idiots in these endeavors.

They can no longer count Dr. Alicia Hendley among them.

Hendley, a career clinical psychologist who specializes in eating, mood, and anxiety disorders, was once a proud member of the transgenderism cult. She recently came out about how she discovered all that was wrong with the transgender movement. It’s a compelling read.

Hendley details how she was once a full-throated supporter of “transgender rights.” Transwomen were women and transmen were men, and biology meant nothing. She followed the movement to the letter, using social media to spread its propaganda, embrace its lies, and shout down and humiliate anyone who dare question it.

“When asked to elaborate, I pointed to vague notions of ‘knowing’ and ‘feeling,’ rather than terms that were rooted in science,” Hendley writes. “When asked to explain further, I resorted to circular reasoning: some men feel like women, and only women can feel like women, therefore some men are women. When pushed on the question of how it is possible to ‘feel like a woman,’ I’d argue that because I ‘felt’ like a woman, it must be true. Other times I resorted to name-calling, labeling women who said transwomen were male ‘bigots’ who were ‘stuck in the '50s,’ and didn’t believe in civil rights.”

Eventually, however, Hendley started to see cracks in transgender ideology.

“Was there any evidence that transgender people were at risk of imminent extermination, similar to vulnerable groups during the Holocaust? No. Were transgender people, as a group, more vulnerable than women? I had no evidence to support this claim. Was silencing women who say that transwomen are not women (and transmen are not men) a punishment that fits the ‘crime’? No.”

Hendley went back to her roots as a researcher and found some disturbing claims in otherwise respected Canadian and American medical journals on the subject of gender dysphoria. Trained physicians were actually promoting hormone treatments for pubescent children who expressed a desire to change sex. Such treatments virtually guarantee infertility, but the children were willing to go through the procedure and reject fertility preservation procedures like sperm or egg harvesting.

The doctors who support these treatments note this is common. Children at this age do not yet have the cognitive ability to understand the long-term implications of their decisions. Yet, these same doctors are willing to let them undergo a medical procedure that will irrevocably change their lives, mutilate their physiology, and possibly shorten their lifespan.

Having now emerged from this movement based on sheer madness, Hendley writes, “I’m chilled at how easy it was for me — a psychologist (now retired), ostensibly trained to understand the human mind — to become so caught up in the momentum of ‘trans rights’ that I avoided critical thought, much like a new member of a cult.”

Hendley further writes that she is reluctant to use the word cult, but a cult is exactly what transgenderism is. It boasts a complete rejection of criticism; bullies, smears, and assassinates the character of anyone who disagrees; and seeks blind adherence to its dogma.

“And, much like a cult,” Hendley continues, “those who push gender identity ideology discourage independent thought, and instead respond to requests for evidence and facts to support their beliefs with platitudes, mantras, and scare tactics, repeated over and over, until they become reality.”

Hendley’s story is a wake-up call to others in the scientific and medical professions about the dangers posed by the militant transgender movement. People we trust as experts in the fields of medicine are being fed a line of political garbage that is harming their ability to help people. It doesn’t serve our youth, it certainly isn’t serving women, and it is not serving our society. Enough is enough.


Immigration & Assimilation
The White House has released a fact sheet on President Trump’s new immigration reform plan. You can read it here.

But there is one aspect of his proposal that isn’t getting the coverage it deserves. President Trump wants our immigration policies to do a much better job of assimilating immigrants, of “Americanizing” new citizens. Here’s some of what the president said Thursday:

Throughout our history, we have proudly welcomed newcomers to our shores.  Out of many people, from many places, we have forged one people and one nation under God, and we’re very proud of it.  We share the same home, we share the same destiny, and we pledge allegiance to the same, great American flag…

To promote integration, assimilation, and national unity, future immigrants will be required to learn English and to pass a civics exam prior to admission.  Through these steps, we will deliver an immigration system that respects, and even strengthens, our culture, our traditions, and our values…

American citizenship is the most precious gift our nation has to offer.  When we swear in new citizens, we do more than give them a permit; we give them a history, a heritage, a home, and a future of limitless possibilities and potential.

Our nation used to pride ourselves on this capacity: our unique ability to instill the spirit of America into any human heart, into any human being… It’s time to restore our national unity and reaffirm our national purpose.  It is time to rebuild our country for all Americans.

I couldn’t agree more! We should be proud of our country and proud of our values.

Being an American means something. It should mean something to the people who want to come here. And as I have long argued, we should know a lot more about the people coming here. We should not be importing more hatred and anti-Semitism into the country.

Requiring immigrants to learn English, learn our history, understand our system of government and share our values is not unreasonable. It’s just common sense.

Pelosi Condemns

The president put a serious proposal on the table, which polls very well with the American people. But I had not gotten back to my car after leaving the White House on Thursday before progressives on Capitol Hill had declared the plan dead on arrival.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi condemned the president’s immigration plan, declaring, “To say that this plan’s application criteria are ‘merit-based’ is the height of condescension.” Maxine Waters denounced the president’s plan, saying that parts of it were “very racist.” (See next item.)

There’s a narrative I am hearing among some conservatives that the only reason Democrats won’t consider Trump’s plan because they don’t want to give the president a legislative victory heading into the 2020 campaign. There is certainly some truth to that.

But here’s the problem with that analysis: It suggests that if we had a progressive president, Democrats would support securing the border, stopping the massive influx of illegal immigration and increasing funding for ICE and the Border Patrol.

Does any conservative really believe that? The reason some Democrats once supported border security is because they felt then that they couldn’t get away with saying what they really believed. This is a vastly different time.

Kristen Gillibrand has apologized for her past moderate views on immigration.

Beto O'Rourke wants to tear down what few border walls we have now.

Here’s what Rep. Ilhan Omar said Thursday: We need to abolish ICE, and end all inhumane deportation and detention programs. We need to fight back against the criminalization of immigrants and those crossing the border.

Joe Biden said recently that we have an obligation to provide free healthcare to anyone, including illegal aliens. And it’s part of the left’s “Medicare for All” plan.

This isn’t just a matter of political strategy. This is a struggle between two completely different worldviews.

The left is all in on open borders because they believe it is to their political benefit to do so. They have regularly reminded us that they believe the great heartland of America is “deplorable and irredeemable,” clinging bitterly to their “guns and religion.”

Crisis On Our Streets

There is a crisis on the border and there’s a crisis on our streets. The left is ignoring both.

The vicious gang MS-13 has claimed yet another victim right here in the Washington, D.C., suburbs. A 14 year-old girl was brutally murdered by other teenagers. The victim was hacked with a machete and beaten with a baseball bat.

As is often the case, the young victim was Hispanic. MS-13, a Latin American gang, preys on other Hispanics because the gang concentrates in other parts of the country where there are large populations of immigrants.

It is beyond absurd to suggest that securing the border and shutting down illegal alien gangs is racism. Perhaps Maxine Waters should visit the families of Jamiel Shaw, Jr., or Ronil Singh to get the perspective of other minorities who have been devastated by open borders and illegal immigration.

Inadequate Answers

I am pleased to report that Attorney General William Barr is pushing hard and demanding answers from the deep state. In an interview with Fox News, Barr said the following:

I’ve been trying to get answers to the questions, and I’ve found that a lot of the answers have been inadequate and some of the explanations I’ve gotten don’t hang together, in a sense I have more questions today than when I first started…

People have to find out what the government was doing during that period. If we’re worried about foreign influence, for the very same reason we should be worried about whether government officials abuse their power and put their thumb on the scale.

Barr’s comments come as former deep state officials have started pointing fingers and redirecting blame. That’s a good sign that Barr is starting to smoke the rats out!



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: