Archives for category: Gender Equality

Democratic politicians accused of sexual harassment and assault are apologizing and resigning, yet the Republicans being accused of same deny, deny, deny, and belittle and attack the women who are making the accusations. #MeToo is proving that our culture has long held a bias against the equality of women, and yet our party of family values still doesn’t get it.

Our party of family values is also the party that is more adamant about removing any security nets for family members, while many of them had the use of them while they were growing up. I know a couple, where the wife had to take retirement early at 62 because her (younger) husband is disabled. His social security disability payment is going up $200 a month in 2018, and her retirement s is going up all of $20 a month. She gets no assistance with him, and while he can get extra assistance from their State’s Medicaid program, if she makes more than $200 a month by doing odd jobs for other people, she will not be eligible for such assistance. She is grateful that being a veteran she is getting some mental health care through the VA for giving up her life and money she could have been getting from Social Security if she could have waited to retire at 66 (at least another $400 per month) by having to stop working to care for her husband. And now the party of family values wants to cut Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. What are they going to do?

Then there’s the tax overhaul that the party of family values wants to pass. Cut exemptions for student loans, mortgage interest and costs, state and local taxes, and more, but expect that cutting corporate taxes will trickle down and raise employee wages, just like they have since the days of Reagan. NOT. I also noticed how cutting out the exemption for state and local taxes affects blue states. You know, the ones that use their taxes for the benefit of their citizens, and give more to the federal government than they receive. Just like American citizens, who give to the government more than they will receive in any kind of benefit if the party of family values has its way.


So long as the women do what the men feel they should be doing.

Representative Buddy Carter of Georgia said on live television appearance on MSNBC that he wants to “snatch a knot” in Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski’s “ass”. In other words, he feels beating a female member of Congress is acceptable because she didn’t vote for something that would have hurt her constituents.

This followed Representative Blake Farenthold of Texas, speaking of Senator Susan Collins’ vote against the quickly and secretly drafted repeal and replace bills, telling a local radio station that, “If it was a guy from south Texas, I might ask him to step outside and settle this Aaron Burr-style.” Again, the threat that violence is acceptable, although he stopped short of saying that it was appropriate to attack a woman. Those two at least had the decency to offer and accept one another’s apologies for statements made.

I’m not surprised by Buddy Carter. Georgia Republicans have a long history of charming their constituents with all the right words, but then working to cut the legs out from under those same constituents. Georgia, one of the red states that did not expand Medicaid “because it would be too costly”, has a high percentage of workers living under the poverty level. While expanding Medicaid would have helped reduce that, the Republican legislature all rejected it. But what can you expect from a state that will not submit disability applications to the federal agency making those decisions, despite the examining doctors confirming to the patient that they should be on disability, unless an attorney forces the issue?

Back to the non-war on women. It is Republican-dominated legislatures that are now trying to force raped women wanting an abortion to get the permission of the rapist. I guarantee that if it was the men who had to go through the experience, it would be shot down immediately. Generally speaking, men are competitive and have to be winners, while women are more cooperative and try to do what is best for their community. Taking that to the political arena, I’ve been noticing that most of the (too few) women in Congress are often shut out of secret meetings and are more likely to consider what is best for their constituents while the men are more interested in making a name for themselves amongst their constituents rather than helping all but a few who can help them retain power and enrich themselves.

Men who cheat on their wives, serially marry, or beget children off multiple women are praised and looked up to, while mothers who have been abandoned and try to get on with their lives are sluts and worse. Heaven forbid a working woman tries to assert herself and her expertise, as she is usually considered, at least among much of corporate management, to be aggressive and bitchy. If, as the Bible says, Eve was created to be an equal and helpmate to Adam, why do men consider women to be no better than chattel, and have to restrict their actions and liberty.

I have yet to hear of Democratic Congressmen inciting violence against women, so I find it hard to believe reports of Democrats having a war on women. Democrats have other problems, but they pale in comparison to the way Republicans are currently acting against half the population (and I am not just considering women in that statement).

Once again betraying a portion of the population that he previously assured he would support, we see that transgender people are not worthy in the eyes of the President or his administration.

I suppose once all the details are worked, the next group he will ban from military service is women. After all, they are just supposed to be eye candy and don’t have opinions or ideas on a par with any man, unless they are President Trump’s daughter.

After that, considering all his expertise in foreign relations, we will obviously need to reinstitute the draft because we won’t have enough servicemen with the elimination of our current and future transgender and female service people to support the size of the military we are going to need to protect ourselves.

I sure do hope that the President’s sons and son-in-law, as well as the male children and grandchildren of all our Congressmen, will be willing to serve their country in the place of all those others willing but not allowed to.

POTUS tweet Wednesday morning after the special election in Georgia’s 6th District:
“Democrats would do much better as a party if they got together with Republicans on Healthcare,Tax Cuts,Security, Obstruction doesn’t work!”

So tell me again how the Democrats are supposed to work together with the Republicans when the latter draft bills behind closed doors and do not allow the Democrats to even see what is being drafted so they can contribute.

And how Pelosi and the Democrats are able to obstruct when they are in a definite minority in both the House, the Senate, and the number of Governorships in the USA. As opposed to the earliest words of the Republicans when Obama was first elected, that the Republicans would resist anything Obama wanted to enact. And as proven by their multiple shutdowns of the government and refusal of the Senate to even consider vote on a Supreme Court nominee, as is their duty. Of course, if the Democrats adopt the same behaviour, maybe they can make obstruction work.

And how its “left” that is hateful when its the “right” that has been trying to keep anyone different from themselves from having the same rights and securities. When I was growing up, we were taught “judge not lest ye be judged”, but its only the more conservative and outspoken religious that seem to be judging others and proclaiming their lives and lifestyles as wrong. Not to forget that most hate crimes in this country are performed by people who don’t like anyone different in any way from themselves (Democrats don’t go to churches or synagogues or mosques and open fire, Democrats do not open fire on health clinic workers, and the non-religious do not protest at funerals for fallen heroes). By the way, I remember Democrats calling Republican behaviour deplorable, but its the Republicans who proudly call themselves that, and call anyone who disagrees with the a Libtard. Of course, what can you expect when a President went around calling his campaign opposition “Little”, “Lyin;”, “low energy”, ugly, “Cheating”, and such. Why wouldn’t his followers do the same?

By the way, my favorite remark from Karen Handel was that she, like other Republicans, does not believe in a livable wage. Her attempt to backtrack to say that the government shouldn’t be responsible for setting a minimum wage doesn’t cut it, as “I really believe that the solution to helping insure that all hard-working Georgians can make a good salary is not through mandates.” However, if not for federally mandated minimum wage of $7.25 per hour, many Georgia employers would not be paying their employees any more than the $5.15 an hour minimum stipulated by the Georgia legislature. Of course, the 6th District doesn’t have to worry about that, as many of them, like Representative-elect Handel, have made their money by using their name-recognition to advance rather than working for the benefit of others. One of the the things Handel did was to use the “woman” card, although she has not done much to improve the lives of woman who need help. But that does seem to be the Republican way.

Anyone care to talk about political double-standard?

Trump’s pattern of behaviour towards women and minorities has been consistent for over 20 years, probably over 30 years. He has been the man at the top when his companies filed for bankruptcy, he had at least one personal income loss of almost $1 billion, he uses his Foundation as a backup bank account, he has been the subject of over 3500 lawsuits, he has single-handedly caused the demise of small businesses by not paying them for goods and services provided and for having all of his product lines made overseas, and he screams out against immigration while marrying two immigrants, having them bear his children before they ever become citizens.

But he is better than Hillary Clinton, who has been an advocate for women and children and small businesses since college, has been cleared of any intentional wrongdoing concerning Benghazi or her email server (which has no proof of hacking, unlike many government servers), has stayed married to the same man despite his earlier infidelities, and is a role model for women trying to break the glass ceiling.

After the recently released 10 year old tape of how he talked about women, and one in particular who he later tried to have fired while she was pregnant, he offers a very staged apology that serves as his springboard that he will be attacking Bill Clinton for similar behaviour. I thought it was Hillary who was running for President. If anyone in the Clinton campaign were to say anything against Melania Trump, we would never hear the end of how she was being mistreated. What’s the difference? If Hillary were to make half the personal attack statements against Trump that he makes against her, everyone would be screaming that it was proof that she’s acting like a hysterical woman and therefore not qualified to be President. Has anyone even tried to be gender-neutral during this contest? Seriously, if we didn’t have full names, just D.J. Trump and H.R. Clinton, and no audio or video, just curricula vitae and statements printed by the press, are we so sure that we are not still believing that a woman has to work twice as hard as a man to be considered half as good?

I just don’t understand women. Having to go through a lifetime of belittling by their fathers, brothers, husbands, boyfriends, car salesman, and people in authority, how can they not understand and support what Hillary has been fighting for, as so many women before her have done? The goal of feminism, from the beginning of the last century and possibly even earlier, was to allow women to be on an equal footing with men, to have similar opportunities, and be able to make their own decisions. Women are not pets or children, but complex beings who know how to work and cooperate to get things done. Adult women comprise 51% of the US population, but their representation at the national level (US Congress) is barely 20%. Male candidates for office invariably attack women candidates by saying they are incapable of fulfilling the duties or that their beliefs are anathema to solid US values. Even women veterans running against male lawyers who never wore a uniform are accused of this. Of course, if we can’t turn a blind eye to colour, why should we turn a blind eye to gender?

Why shouldn’t a man with no sense of public service be elected over a woman who, if she were a man, would be counted as the most qualified candidate in recent history? Why shouldn’t a party stick behind such a man, no matter what devastation he may cause, just because he belongs to the right party?

I guess its good to be a middle aged to older white man who knows that he is better than anyone else.

Pardon my naiveté, but I don’t understand why christians, who are supposedly non-judgmental and forgiving, are so up in arms about the Supreme Court’s decision to legalize same sex marriage. The basic reason behind the legalization was that gay couples, many of whom are more committed and monogamous than their heterosexual counterparts, were being denied the same legal rights as their straight counterparts. Can you imagine being told that you had no legal right to see your partner in the hospital because you are not family? Or being able to provide health insurance for the person with whom you have shared your life? What about when the person with whom you have lived for 30 years dies and his/her family comes in and takes everything they want because they are family and you are not, even though you purchased the items together or they have sentimental value to you? Civil unions did not uniformly provide protections, and weren’t even legal in all states. Is the attitude toward same sex marriage that different from the old attitudes toward interracial marriages? As far as clergy being forced to officiate at same sex marriages, they would no more be forced to do that than they are forced to perform marriages between couples of different religions. Nor would they have to officiate for anyone not of their congregation if they chose not to. A simple refusal to perform a ceremony is not going to result in any lawsuit. After all, if one minister won’t perform my ceremony, I would want to find someone else who was willing. In fact, I wouldn’t even ask a minister if I didn’t respect and honor him or her enough to want that minister to share in my special day. As far as other service providers, such as florists and caterers, if they have a storefront that is open to the public, they should not be allowed to say that because I don’t approve of your behavior I will not serve you. Especially in a case where the provider had provided services in the past when they were unaware of the person’s sexual orientation. If the business owner does limited business, why can’t they simply beg off saying that they already have something scheduled and wouldn’t have time? Remember also that if you are being offered the opportunity to provide flowers, catering or some other service, it is because your abilities are appreciated by someone, not because they are trying to antagonize you. As a final comment, while the laws of this country are based on the ethics and morality that are rooted in religion, religion is not the final law of his country. Religion does not seem to profess that all should be treated equally, and that is what the laws of this country attempt to do. Many of the earliest immigrants came in order to practice religion as they saw fit, so why should religion now dictate what other men and women should be able to do?

Late in the evening, behind closed doors (well, open only to C-SPAN but not allowing reporters to take notes on the session), the US House of Representatives passed H.J. Res. 43, which states: “Disapproving the action of the District of Columbia Council in approving the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Amendment Act of 2014. (as introduced) ”

Yes, its only dealing with the District of Columbia, but the gist of the disapproval is that women on birth control can be legally fired by their employers for that reason alone. Their reasoning? Religion, of course, and that birth control should not be a covered care item under health insurance. I admit I have not read the Reproductive Health Non-Discrimination Act of 2014 and may be slightly off-base, but my next question related to this disapproved Act is whether a man using a condom is also liable to be fired, as condoms have always been the first line of birth control until the middle of the last century. I find it hard to believe any employer would fire a man having plenty of protected sex, so why are they singling out women to punish? It takes two to have sex, and with all the single mothers out there, I’m sure many of them did not decide they wanted to have children all on their own.

Could someone please tell me how the policies regarding women and gender equality that the Republican party is trying to ram down our throats is any different from what Islamic State is trying to force on everyone in the areas they take over? When did women become second class citizens under Christian rule? Haven’t the last 100 years proven that women can be just as capable as men? Is that the problem? Are men so insecure that they have to place women into a subordinate position in order to have any self esteem? I guess preventing creativity and growth in others is the only way for some to feel important.

Interestingly, it is typically the most outspokenly professedly religious men that have this expectation of women being worth nothing little more than child-bearing vessels and silent keepers of a man’s home. Men who are not religious are much more likely to accept and treat women as equals. The more the Republican party allies itself with religious groups that deprecate and demean women, the less likely it will be to be taken seriously. The Republicans seem to want to return to the 1950s, rather than look forward to the possibilities of the 2050s. Too many women I know did not go into the hard sciences because they were never taken seriously. Even my parents’ generation expected women to go to college to get their MRS. Apparently, that’s what the wives of so many of these Republican politicians felt was expected of them. And, as what is expected of them, they support their husband’s political machinations rather than supporting members of their gender who are trying to live better lives.

I sure hope that what the House has passed is stopped at the Senate. I am embarrassed by the way Congressmen, who are a privileged group, are able to dictate how others may live, especially to the point that those subjected to law can once again be subject to discrimination from which they thought they had been delivered. I’m especially embarrassed by the female members of the House who feel that it is acceptable to override anti-discrimination acts.

If the legislation affecting women were to be targeted to men instead, I’m quite sure there would be a huge outcry. But it is only targeted to women. So yes, I do believe there is a war on women being waged by the religious leaders and politicians of the US, and I hope women start standing up for themselves and vote these clowns out of office and lobby them off their pulpits and radio or TV shows until they come to t heir senses and start treating women with the respect they deserve.