Friday, January 31, 2020



Left Claims Women Are Essential To Business But Optional To Families

In 2020, Washington state insists the female perspective is critical to corporations. But in 2018, it insisted the female perspective was optional for children.

Washington state Democrats continue to run the table with their majority. They opened the new year with several egregious legislative initiatives, from decriminalizing underage prostitution to pushing the comprehensive sexual education program soundly rejected by a majority of Washington state parents late last year. Also up on the overreaching docket is SB 6037, which would require every public company to have a “gender-diverse board of directors.”

It would appear the Senate Democrats believe representation of both sexes is of great importance. Unfortunately, their concern regarding sex differences is limited only to the world of business because they spent 2018 scrubbing the words “mother” and “father” from the world of family. The passage of the Uniform Parentage Act in 2018, coincidentally also numbered SB 6037, supported by every Senate Democrat, made one’s sex in parenthood officially optional.

Democratic Sen. Jamie Pedersen, sponsor of both the 2018 and 2020 versions of SB 6037, stated in a 2018 Senate hearing that referencing mothers and fathers in parenthood laws was “unconstitutional.” The SB 6037 circa 2018 not only rendered parenthood sex-neutral, it legalized commercial surrogacy and endorsed the dangerous precedent of parenthood based on “intent” — a.k.a., awarding children to whichever adults have the money to acquire them.

The justification for such a radical makeover? The national legalization of gay marriage, proving once again that redefining marriage redefines parenthood. When you make husbands and wives optional in marriage, mothers and fathers become optional in parenthood. Bye-bye sexual equality in the family.

Pedersen’s SB 6037 circa 2020 penalizes businesses that don’t have a “gender diverse” board. He thinks there should be at least 25 percent female representation at the head of each company. Ironically, no females are represented at the head of Pedersen’s own home. He and his husband purposefully excluded women from the upbringing of their children after poaching a woman’s useful parts to acquire children, that is, purchasing eggs and renting wombs.

To juxtapose these incongruent ideas more succinctly: SB 6037 of 2020 insists the female perspective is critical to corporations. SB 6037 of 2018 insists the female perspective is optional for children.

Kids Need Moms and Dads

As the founder of a nonprofit created to defend a child’s right to be known and loved by both his mother and father, I can tell you the research on sex-specific parental involvement is conclusive: Neither mother nor father are optional. That’s because men and women are different and thus interact with children in wonderfully sex-specific ways. In fact, men’s and women’s parenting styles are so sex-specific, researchers have concluded that “parenting” is a misnomer; there is only “mothering” and “fathering.”

Here are just a few examples of the distinct and complementary ways men and women parent:

Connecting: Dads and moms connect to, interact with, and relate to children differently. Moms tend to be more gentle and quiet. Dads are more physical; they do more tickling, wrestling, and general adventuring. Moms tend to be more involved with what sociologists call “mundane caregiving” — keeping the child fed, clothed, clean, and generally alive.

Dads tend to be more active, unpredictable, and imaginative than moms. When directing their children’s behaviors, dads tend to be more rule-based, whereas moms tend to err on the side of grace and empathy. One encourages independence; the other encourages security.

Talking: Generally, moms are more in tune with their children’s specific emotional needs. Thus, more often mom is on the scene with affirming words. Dads tend to be more direct. In conversation with their children, moms tend to simplify their language so they can connect on their child’s level: “Do you have an owie?”

Dads talk to their babies like they talk to everyone else, with more complex and adult words: “Dude, that’s a gnarly rug burn!” One approach reaches kids right at their comprehension level, while the other pushes them to the next comprehension level.

Playing: Generally, mothers care for children, and fathers play with children. When mothers do play, it’s different from how dads play. Fathers predominantly play in the arena of large motor skill development, such as running, jumping, and throwing. Mothers’ play lands on the finer side of motor skill development, such as coloring, cutting, and crafting.

Moms tend to focus on fairness in play. Dads’ play encourages boundary-pushing, competition, and appropriate risk-taking. Dads encourage competition, while moms encourage equity.

Proof for these glorious and complementary differences can be verified by searching “dad with baby video.” The results are filled with fathers doing creative, limit-pushing activities with their kids, from strapping their Bumbo to the top of the Roomba, to toddlers dancing to “Beat It” in their BabyBjorn, to dads putting kids in a laundry basket so they can pretend they’re on a roller coaster.

Now search “mom with baby video.” The search results are filled with sweet and adorable, cuddly mom-and-baby moments. It’s a glorious display of human nature — moms providing security and dads providing adventure. Kids need wild fun. They also need the security of being strapped to their mother while she cooks dinner.

Kids Want Moms and Dads

You know what else? Kids want a mother and father. As my nonprofit’s growing story bank can testify, kids who grow up well-loved by single parents or double moms or dads crave the sex-specific love they missed. Ted, raised by two moms, shared:

"From an early age I found myself being drawn to my friends’ fathers, or at least the ones who seemed like good, responsible, loving dads. I think my parents knew somewhere in the back of their minds that this was necessary for me and didn’t discourage this. My best friend’s dad also probably recognized the role he was fulfilling in my life and did so willingly and that’s something I’m forever grateful for".

One daughter of a single mother wrote:

"I’ve only wanted one thing in this life that I have been missing: paternal love. The bond between a father and his daughter that shows her the way a man should treat her; It shows her how a man should love her. The type of love that pushes her on the swings. The type of love that picks her 50lb body up after she falls and says to her, “I love you.” I’m jealous of that paternal type of love that the girls share with their fathers."

Samantha, raised by her father and his partner, shared how she longed for a mother:

"My 5-year-old brain could not understand why I didn’t have the mom that I desperately wanted. As I grew, I tried to fill that hole with aunts, and dads’ lesbian friends, and teachers. I remember asking my first grade teacher if I could call her mom. I asked that question to any woman that showed me any amount of love and affection. I craved a mother’s love even though I was well-loved by my two gay dads."

It’s beneficial for children to have equal sex representation at the head of their home. This sex parity provides children what they need for optimal development, satisfies their primal longings, and fulfills their natural rights. Unfortunately for the children in my state, their need for sex diversity in the living room pales in comparison to the need for sex diversity in the boardroom.

Gender Matters Everywhere, Including in the Home

The left is constantly fawning over female members of the Supreme Court, ostensibly from the belief that these women offer a distinct and necessary perspective from the highest bench in the land. Many early childhood educators lament the disproportionate female-to-male teacher ratio, about nine-to-one, in elementary schools, arguing that children, especially those reared by single mothers, would greatly benefit from male teachers as role models.

According to the Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, “[H]alf of the countries of the world today use some type of electoral quota for their parliament.” And hell will be paid if there are no female nominees for Best Director at the Oscars. So it seems sex matters to the left in the institutions of justice, education, business, government, and entertainment. Yet we are somehow supposed to pretend sex is irrelevant in the institution of the family? Only the worship of adult sexual desires could put us under such a dubious spell.

If the Democrats here in Washington state have any interest in righting their hypocrisy before their unscientific, foundationless worldview collapses on them, I suggest they propose a bill mandating sex quotas in the home. The bill could recognize the important sex diversity they claim to value, and do so for the sake of the most vulnerable demographic in their state: children.

Such a bill would capitalize on the natural order that already exists, that both a man and a woman are required for baby-making. It could even encourage, through benefits such as tax breaks, that men and women cooperate in child-rearing. A bill like that would forward societal expectations that both parents remain committed to their child for life, thus allowing children to enjoy the sex-diverse gifts that men and women bring to the boardroom of the family.

We could call that legislative initiative “marriage.” After all, natural marriage is the only institution that has always gotten sex quotas exactly right.

SOURCE 





Trans MMA Fighter Who Broke Woman’s Skull Celebrated as ‘Bravest Athlete in History’

A male-to-female transgender mixed martial arts fighter, who twice broke a woman’s opponent’s skull in a fight, has been named the “bravest athlete in history.”

Fallon Fox, who rose to prominence in 2013-14, is an infamous transgender MMA fighter who demolished her opponent Erika Newsome in a Coral Gables, FL, MMA fight.

Fox, according to The Verge, “secured a grip on Newsome’s head… With her hands gripping the back of Newsome’s skull, she delivered a massive knee, bringing her leg up while pulling her opponent’s head down. The blow landed on Newsome’s chin and dropped her, unconscious, face-first on the mat.”

Fox also defeated Tamikka Brents, giving her a concussion and breaking 7 orbital bones, reported Sott.

In spite of an innate biological advantage over her opponent, Out Sports–a sports subdivision of Out magazine–claimed that “Fallon Fox is still the bravest athlete in history,” in a recent headline on the controversial athlete.

Out Sports explains, “Fox stood strong and continued to push for, and earn, her right to compete.”

Except for one fateful match, she also won every time she stepped into the professional ring.

Fox has remained hidden from the fighting scene and public eye for a while due to injuries.

Fox said, “I would have kept going but the injuries were the biggest reason,” before going onto explain, “Some people suspected it was the UFC not letting me in, but that wasn’t the ultimate goal. Some people would ask if I wanted to fight in the UFC, and yeah, I would have taken that opportunity. But even without that I would have just kept fighting.”

The author of the piece slams naysayers, such as Joe Rogan, as being “vicious for the sake of being vicious.”

The author later explains that sensational headlines emphasizing how a trans athlete broke her competitor’s skull were overblown as “Broken bones and concussions are not uncommon in MMA.”

Fox said, “This happens all the time,” adding, “I’m not the first female MMA fighter who’s broken another fighter’s bones or caused a large amount of stitches or a concussion or any combination of those.

“And people will of course, because I’m trans, hold it up as this devastating thing that couldn’t possibly happen if I weren’t trans. But there are many different examples of similar things happening.”

Fox’s ability to compete against women has been subject of much controversy.

SOURCE 






The New Face of Prejudice

Patrick Hampton (who is black) says conservatives are the new n*ggers

In a society where racism is deemed evil for all, there can be no justification for the prejudices we conservatives experience today.

A week ago, (on the MLK holiday weekend, coincidentally) I boarded a charter bus with a band of conservatives (of all colors, if that matters to anyone) en route to the BLEXIT rally in Charlotte. Also in attendance were my two oldest sons, who begged me to go. North Carolina bound, we all discussed issues, laughed together, and forged new friendships, bonding with one another over shared values and a hope for a stronger, more unified America.

But when we arrived, we weren't met with this camaraderie.

Upon entering the hotel, some folks didn't take too kindly to our presence. Many of us were wearing what we believed in — American flags, pro-God apparel, and also the infamous red MAGA caps. This attracted glares of disapproval and commentary. Some onlookers muttered under their breaths, while others had no problem stepping up to us directly; one went as far as to call us "trifling." So much for a hospitable welcome.

After a five-hour commute, hunger set in. We decided on a bite to eat at a nearby soul food restaurant.

Our entrance disrupted dinner for some of the black patrons who decided to pack up and leave. Others made statements suggesting that we weren't welcome, although the employees were kind and had no problem serving our group. Sadly, the best soul food I've had in years was peppered with the prejudice of passersby who refused to sit in the same room with us.

It was as if we walked into a time rift, returning to the civil-rights era. But instead of everything being labeled "whites or coloreds only," our world was divided by whether we were liberal or conservative. Everything that's old would become new again. I'll leave you to decide which group isn't welcome today.

It wasn't until one group member started to cry that I realized something. I hadn't factored in the reality that many of the people in our entourage had never seen what black conservatives experience on a daily basis. I had learned to grow tough skin in dealing with my own community, having been blackballed after my run for school board in 2014. I was told to never come back to the black inner city. I found myself unable to find work except for mopping floors in a medical facility to pay for my son's private-school tuition. But like many faithful black conservatives, I did the only thing I knew to do — pray for God to create an opportunity for me.

But at that restaurant, hope was also served. Not every patron projected their disapproval on us. One woman asked questions about why some of us support President Donald Trump. After I explained my stance, she had more questions. Her curiosity had been piqued. In terms of thinking differently about politics, the seeds of freedom of thought were sown.

Our weekend continued to be filled with question and query, as people stopped to debate, discuss, or simply ask "why." And while I know we will never convince every single individual of our views, having the conversation at all would be defined as a success in my book.

On a positive note, some minds were changed. Other people were prompted to think more deeply about their stances on topics such as school and educational choice, free enterprise, and abortion. So long as black people are thinking instead of feeling, God's work is being done.

Overall, I found it interesting how our group of conservatives approached the aforementioned scenarios. Instead of attempting to "cancel" others with Facebook posts, marches, media coverage, and negative reviews, we compassionately shared a bit of ourselves with people we didn't know from Adam.

During the midnight trip home, I quietly held my head down, reflecting on how much I learned from this experience. There's much to realize about the state of our society and how racism has been allowed to proliferate among progressives for far too long. And while the road to ideological freedom is long, we're growing closer and more black and brown people are coming along for the ride. Unlike today's progressives and liberals, we conservatives have saved a seat for anyone who wants to come. The only admission is an open mind.

SOURCE 






Row over Bettina Arndt’s honour

Social commentator and men’s rights advocate Bettina Arndt has hit back after Victoria’s attorney-general called for her to be stripped of her Australia Day honour.

Over the weekend, Ms Arndt was appointed a Member of the Order of Australia (AM) — Australia’s third-highest civic honour — for striving to achieve “gender equity through advocacy for men”.

The journalist and sex therapist was criticised in 2018 when she interviewed convicted sex offender Nicolaas Bester and has been outspoken against what she believes is a “fake rape crisis” at Australian universities.

In response, Labor’s Jill Hennessy, who is also state minister for workplace safety, has written to Governor-General David Hurley after the Australia Day Honours list was published on Sunday saying she was alarmed at the appointment.

Ms Arndt has blasted the letter as “gobsmacking” and “absolutely hilarious”.

Ms Hennessy’s letter, dated January 28 and posted on her Facebook page, recognises the honours are decided with the recommendation of an independent council but asks why Ms Ardnt was included.

“Taking into account Ms Arndt’s well-documented opinions, public commentary and media appearances — which include sympathising with a convicted paedophile and blaming and shaming victims — this award is an insult to victims of sexual abuse and to those of us who work hard every day to prevent it,” she wrote.

Ms Hennessy also pointed to the issue of family violence.

“I would ask that the Council of the Order of Australia consider cancellation of Ms Arndt’s award given that her public commentary brings the Order into disrepute and in particular that it attaches the Order’s tacit support to her views,” she wrote.

Ms Ardnt said Ms Hennessy should be ashamed.

“Shame on Victoria’s first law officer, Jill Hennessy, the Victorian Attorney-General for responding to muckraking from ideologues rather than seeking proper evidence,” she posted on Twitter.

She posted this morning: “She shows my main crime was defending men and telling the truth about women’s role in family violence.”

This all comes as the New Matilda questioned Ms Arndt’s credentials — writing that she was not a doctor, had never obtained a PhD and nor was she a psychologist or clinical psychologist.

The publication claimed she “has actively participated in the promotion of material which portrays her falsely as a psychologist, clinical psychologist and doctor”.

On Facebook overnight, Ms Arndt hit back at the story, calling it a “hit job”.

“I am not currently a practising psychologist. However, that was certainly my professional training when I started my career in the 1970s. I have postgraduate qualifications in clinical psychology,” she wrote.

“It’s common practice for well-known people to use labels that include their professional background. According to the authorities regulating professional practice for psychologists, I am not doing anything wrong.”

Former Australian of the Year and family violence survivor Rosie Batty, whose young son was murdered by her mentally ill ex-husband, earlier this week questioned the legitimacy of the appointment.

“I cannot help but be appalled that someone who minimised violence towards women who is part of the inevitable push-back and backlash that we all experience as we pioneer a way forward, would be awarded,” Ms Batty told news.com.au.

Upon receiving her honour, Ms Arndt told news.com.au she had been writing about men’s issues for 30 years.

She said she started off as a feminist and campaigning for women’s rights, but became “increasingly alarmed” by the movement.

“I felt in many areas, women had achieved equality,” she said. “We had a lot to celebrate. But there are many who wanted to extend women’s rights well beyond any notion of equality.

“It’s now all about male bashing, trying to advantage women over men in so many areas. I had enough of that.

“I don’t think it’s fair that a small, noisy minority group in our society closes down discussion on issues that affect half the population.”

SOURCE  

******************************

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: