Article here. Excerpt:

'The factoid that women earn only 77 cents of every dollar earned by men is the focal point of a feminist cargo cult. It has its own movement and its own quasi-holiday, the so-called Equal Pay Day, marking how far into a new year women supposedly have to work to match what men made the prior year.

The figure is presumed to clinch any debate over the continued existence of massive discrimination against women in the work force. And so the factoid has predictably featured heavily in the latest push by Democrats on the alleged “war on women.”

What is clear is that the wage gap is largely an artifact of the fact that women devote more time to caring for children than do men. Harvard economist Claudia Goldin points out that the earnings of women without children are almost equal to those of comparable men. Feminists are mistaking a byproduct of the laudable desire of mothers to spend time with their kids for a depredation of The Man.

When asked in an MSNBC interview about the reliability of the pay-gap number, White House economist Betsey Stevenson confessed: “I agree that the 77 cents on the dollar is not all due to discrimination. No one is trying to say that it is. But you have to point to some number in order for people to understand the facts.”

There you have it: For people to understand the facts, you have to give them an easily misunderstood statistic, usually without necessary context and spun in the most inflammatory fashion possible. Enter President Barack Obama. He wrings every bit of dishonesty he can out of the number.
No matter. Hillary Clinton, whose prospective presidential campaign will be predicated on every feminist cliché her supporters can muster, tweeted on Equal Pay Day, “20 years ago, women made 72 cents on the dollar to men. Today it’s still just 77 cents. More work to do.”'

Story here. Excerpt:

'University of Connecticut officials have suspended a sorority as they investigate allegations that its members forced men to drink booze, eat dog treats, paint their bodies, wear women's underwear and take alcohol shots off each other's bodies.

UConn suspended the Delta Zeta sorority on Wednesday. School officials say they are investigating hazing at an off-campus apartment complex on March 7. The men involved were with a school fraternity.
Another UConn sorority, Kappa Kappa Gamma, and the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity were suspended in March and remain under investigation because of hazing allegations.'

Video here. Excerpt:

'A cell phone video shows a bullied boy taking a whooping from a girl on a school bus before he unexpectedly fights back — and then just as surprisingly performs an act of compassion.
The boy tries to cover his face, but the pummeling continues — until he snaps.
It was unclear where and when the incident happened.

“Uh oh,” says one of the passengers as the boy scrambles to his feet to fight back and puts an end to the bullying immediately.

After turning the tables on his shaken attacker he asks her, “You O.K.?”'

Link here. Excerpt:

'The widely held belief that only women experience eating disorders delays men with these conditions from getting treatment, a new British study says.

"Men with eating disorders are underdiagnosed, undertreated and under-researched," write a team led by Ulla Raisanen at the University of Oxford.

Eating disorders include anorexia, bulimia and binge eating.
"Our findings suggest that men may experience particular problems in recognizing that they may have an eating disorder as a result of the continuing cultural construction of eating disorders as uniquely or predominantly a female problem," they added.

This belief is also widespread among medical professionals, according to the researchers.'

"Rape Culture" is a fraud. The commonly used quote, "One in five college women will be a victim of rape or sexual assault," is a lie. Since we bust lies with the truth, we will show you how to counter this one with a simple math equation. Start with your local college and its Clery Act report. You can use Google, or any search engine to find this information. In this example I'm using Stanford. Find the number of "Forcible Sex Offenses" for one year. Include the incidents in student residences, on campus, non-campus, and on public property. Include forcible rape, forcible fondling, and other forcible offences. I'm using 2012, so the total in this example is 26. Since we know that only about 10% of these incidents are reported, we'll multiply this number by ten, so now we have the number 260. Now, let's compare that to the number of female students at Stanford that year. (We know that male students are also victims of rape and sexual assault, but to simplify this experiment, we are only counting women.)

Include female undergraduates and graduates, part-time and full-time. In this case, the number is 7,989. Divide the number of victims by the number of female students. In this case we get .0325. Now, move the decimal point over two spaces to the right, and you get the percentage of female students who were victims of a forcible sex offence at Stanford in 2012: 3.25. Three percent, even three and a quarter percent is nowhere close to the 20% fraud. Now, please find this information on your local college, and share it far and wide.

Teri Stoddard, Program Director
Stop Abusive and Violent Environments
[Click 'Read more' below, especially if you live in California, for a related activism opportunity.]

Story here. Excerpt:

'A former drama teacher who admitted to having sex with a 16-year-old student will not see any jail time for the offense.

Kelly Burgess, 26, of Newport, England was given a seven month suspended sentence after she pleaded guilty to four sexual offenses of breach of trust - engaging in a sexual act with a child, according to the BBC.

"The relationship, albeit conducted as if between equals, was not a relationship between equals," Judge Euan Ambrose said in Bristol Crown Court this week. "You were older, you were his teacher and you should at all times have known better."

The Bristol Post reports the illegal relationship lasted seven months and took place between January and August of last year.

Burgess and the victim exchanged 1,200 texts, some explicit, and she saved three naked pictures of the victim that he sent her, the court heard.
Burgess, who was fired from her job, must register as a sex offender for 10 years and is prohibited from contact with children.

The Telegraph's Cristina Odone contends that the sentence would have been more harsh if "Kelly Burgess had been a Keith Burgess."'

Article here. Excerpt:

It’s an election year, which means the Democrats’ crass politicization of important women’s issues is gearing up once more.

Don’t be fooled by President Obama’s new push for pay equity. It sounds good, but it is nothing more than a political ploy to distract from the ever-conspicuous cloud of bad mojo following Democrats around as they brace for the 2014 midterm elections.

In the past few election cycles, a the left has done a masterful job of courting women by creating lines of division between Republicans and Democrats where they don’t actually exist.

Back in 2008, the ploy was the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. Republicans support fair pay for equal work, of course, but nevermind that. Democrats decided to debate — and put Republicans on the spot regarding — a bill that did not actually solve pay inequity. Instead, it merely lengthened the statute of limitations for filing an equal-pay lawsuit. The law has since been criticized for being nothing more than a windfall for trial lawyers.

In 2012, the left resurrected the Violence Against Women Act — to direct hundreds of millions of dollars toward stopping something that is already illegal in all 50 states and punishable by law. No Republican supports violence against women, naturally, but many rightly questioned whether reauthorization was wise, considering that VAWA’s success in reducing domestic violence since its passage in 1994 has been negligible, the latest version even included protections for men, and the tweaks to the bill seemed primarily positioned to once again line the pockets of trial lawyers.

Here we go again. In 2014, Democrats are at it once more, introducing symbolic bills that don’t solve women’s problems, all to paint a ridiculously unfair caricature that the Republicans are waging a war on women.'

Article here. Excerpt:

It's an election year and guess what that means? Apparently, it is time for the White House, Democrats and the media to pretend there is a thing called a "War on Women."

You may remember this as the tired trope that says Republicans have a problem with women, want to control your bodies and make you have babies against your will, they want you barefoot, pregnant and stupid. Alas, this isn't the only front of this fabricated fight. This week's fabricated outrage liberals are valiantly working to overcome today? Gender income-inequality.

That's right, it's a fun story involving female reproductive organs, unfairness AND evil business owners!

Can anyone explain that 77 percent number?

Facts aren't needed here, let's just pretend this is actually a thing that should be taken seriously for a second. Are we pretending that the evil greedy monstrous corporations, that liberals are also busy whining about buying elections, would be willing to pass up a massive labor pool that would cut their cost by 23 percent? If they could hire all women at a significant savings for the same work from people with the same education and experience.

Feminists tried in 2012 and guess what they found? It is completely fake.
The President is offering up a few token executive orders, much like his minimum wage order that contractors who serve the government will pay workers more. These orders won't do much, mostly because they aren't needed, but they will generate headlines which is the real goal.
Electoral politics and lack of respect for the cognitive thinking skills of American women.

Article here.

'In the wake of the Paycheck Fairness Act’s defeat in the U.S. Senate yesterday, Morning Joe co-host Mika Brzezinski and Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol battled over the necessity of the legislative changes, as Brzezinski said the law on the books prohibiting pay discrimination was “broken every day.”

“If you look at the actual statistics, and control for education and hours worked, women have about 97% of the salaries of men, and younger women in their twenties and thirties have slightly higher salaries than men,” Kristol said. “Actually, the real problem if you actually talk to a serious economist about our workforce, the people who are really doing badly, and it’s a terrible thing, are young men. Especially young, less-educated men, working class men in their twenties and thirties. Globalization hasn’t helped them in the types of jobs that are produced.”

“So the notion that the ‘war on women’ or pay discrimination against women is in the top twenty problems in the United States is frankly ridiculous,” Kristol continued. “I say this as someone who is a big fan of women.”

“The fact that it’s illegal to discriminate means nothing for women in the workplace who are paid less than their male counterparts,” Brzezinski said. “The numbers out there, from the testimonials I’ve gotten from people, in the aftermath of writing my book about this, are that the numbers are far worse. They’re Lilly Ledbetter’s numbers. Women are getting paid half of what their counterparts make. You know why? Because companies can do that, because that law can be broken, and nobody knows about it.”

Article here. Excerpt:

'Senate Democrats are following up on the White House “Equal Pay Day” dog and pony show yesterday with another push designed to highlight their supposed concern for the plight of female workers. The Paycheck Fairness Act that was put to a vote today had no more chance of passage than it did when it was last introduced before the 2012 election. But as it did that previous time, Democrats are hoping that it will serve to feed their fake “war on women” theme that has helped them gain an advantage with female voters while also helping to distract voters from the president’s second term blues and discontent about the implementation of ObamaCare.

Article here. Excerpt:

'Here’s a radical notion: It is simultaneously possible to believe that women are entitled to equal pay and to not support the Paycheck Fairness Act.

Not that you’d know it from the rhetoric President Obama and fellow Democrat are happily flinging at Republicans who dare to oppose the measure.

“I don’t know why you would resist the idea that women should be paid the same as men and then deny that that’s not always happening out there,” Obama said Tuesday. “If Republicans in Congress… want to show that they do care about women being paid the same as men, then show me…They can join us, in this, the 21st century and vote yes on the Paycheck Fairness Act.”
Before you start checking the byline at the top of this piece and emailing the editor that there’s been a terrible mistake, let me be clear: I support ensuring that women receive equal pay for equal work — I have a bit of a vested stake in that issue myself. Unequal pay remains a problem, although not at the women-earn-77-cents-on-the-dollar level of Democrats’ sloganeering. Most relevantly, I’d vote for the Paycheck Fairness Act in the unlikely event that someone elected me to Congress.

'According to the latest statistics from the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development), men in the United States worked for pay for an average of 308 minutes per day in 2013, as compared with 242 minutes per day for women. That's the equivalent of 1,874 hours per year for men versus 1,472 hours for women. Based on these numbers, Equal Work Day will fall on April 10, 2014 in the US. Similar results can be found in Canada and many other nations.

Certainly this is not the complete story. These same statistics show that women spend more time on unpaid work*, reporting that they do more housework and spend more time on childcare than men do. There will be plenty of women viewing this page who work 50, 60 hours a week or more, as well as men who work fewer hours than their partners.

Over the past 30 years, a picture has been painted by the media in the US of a sexist workplace that deprives women of the opportunity to compete fairly in the job market. Certainly there was a time when this was true. But is it still true? Some arguments and statistics around pay equality avoid significant aspects of the choices that men and women make voluntarily. This is an important subject to study further - but no one statistic or sound bite can adequately cover the subject.'

Story here. Excerpt:

'Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) wants us to know she's mad - angry, outraged, even - that her Senate colleagues didn't pass her Paycheck Fairness Act today. The bill failed to gain cloture by a vote of 53 to 44.

"I'll tell you what I'm tired of hearing," she yelled, "that somehow or other we're too emotional when we talk."
"You know what I'm tired of hearing? That somehow or other we're too emotional when we talk. Well I am emotional. I am so emotional about this. I tell you that if we don't pass this bill, I'm gonna press on. It bring tears to my eyes, to know how women are working so hard and are getting paid less. It makes me emotional to hear that. Then when I hear all of these phony reasons, some are mean and some are meaningless. I do get emotional.

"I get angry. I get outraged. I get volcanic."

Before getting so angry, Senator Mikulski might want to take a look at a law that requires employers to not discriminate on the basis of sex. It's called the Equal Pay Act - and it was passed in 1963.'

Story here.

'A Shanghai woman, angry with her husband following a quarrel, took out her frustration on her son, chopping off three of his left hand fingers. The incident happened on Wednesday, when the couple began quarreling over some family issues, police said yesterday. The wife got angry and pulled her 8-year-old son over, cutting off three of his fingers with a kitchen knife. The boy was rushed to hospital while the woman has been detained by police.'

Story here. Excerpt:

'This is the shocking punishment dished out to a six-year-old boy by his mother - for not doing his homework.

Whipped with a wire coat-hanger ’s [sic] injuries were so brutal his own nursery teacher reported his mother to police.

However, police in China decided the scars left on the schoolboy’s thighs should not result in his mother being charged because they were “not so bad as they look”.

The teacher at the school in southern China’s Jiangmen city in southern Guandong province spotted the whiplash injuries as the youngster changed for a sports lesson.
But police sent to investigate ruled the injuries - sustained as the boy was steel-chained to his bed to stop him running out to play - looked worse than they were.

A police spokesman said: “The boy’s mother and father were unhappy about his performance at school and he was a naughty boy who often failed to do his homework. He needed to be taught a lesson.
The youngster was taken to hospital, but as the bruises and red welts reduced he was sent back to his parents a few hours later.'

Syndicate content