Archive for the ‘Culture’ Category

It’s Time for Women to Reject Feminism and Kiss Peter Pan Goodbye

Wednesday, April 11th, 2012

In an attempt to explain why a generation of women born in the 1960s and 1970s are finding themselves living lives of solitude, a male friend emailed me All the Single Ladies, thinking I’d buy into the writer’s load of crap. The 39 year old single woman spends an endless amount of ink trying to convince herself and single women everywhere they are happy living empowered lives of solitude, which couldn’t be further from the truth.

This article is depressing and full of denial. Thanks to the 1960s Feminist movement which spawned theory of patriarchy, hatred of all things male, and re-engineered traditional gender roles, American culture from academia to business world led  women could be all things to themselves: provider, wonder woman, and in some cases mothers without men in their lives. While some women may genuinely want to live alone, I believe most women, including the author, don’t want to live in solitude or be independent women.

Unfortunately, this post sexual feminist revolution compelled women to enter the work force with this mindset they should not only compete with men but act like them, out earn them and convince themselves they don’t need them. The grand result of this revolution waged by the likes of Gloria Steinem, Kate Millet, Chris Weedon, Bell Hooks and other horrid, male hating women is a generation of barren, single women because the gender roles have been thrown into chaos. Since 1976, the percentage of women in their early 40s who have not given birth has nearly doubled and marriage is on the decline. As Atlantic Kate Bolick wrote “Gloria Steinem said, in the 1970s, “We’re becoming the men we wanted to marry.” I doubt even she realized the prescience of her words.

What’s worse is liberals perpetuate this super woman, feminist fiction by attempting to slay traditional gender roles. Washington Post reporter Ruth Marcus mocked Ann Romney as “stay at home mother” while glorifying Michelle Obama as pinnacle of womanhood for “raising a family and pursuing a career.” If any political party is engaging in a war on women, it’s Democrats. Women are intelligent creatures who can decide for themselves if they want to stay at home, work, be pro life or pro choice; we don’t need Democrats trying to live our lives for us.

During my senior year of college at Georgetown University, I was forced to take a feminist criticism seminar as part of my Honors English major and hated it. I and other women in the class couldn’t understand why we were required to re-evaluate the great works of DH Lawrence, Shakespeare, Bernard Shaw and others as male demons who exploited women. Of course this couldn’t be further from the truth books like Madame Bovary and plays like Romeo& Juliet gave women a voice  reflective of the times in which they lived.

You can’t deconstruct these great literature and impose a twisted  patriarchal narrative upon them, sorry women aren’t stupid. We also had to read lots of lesbian feminist theory for the seminar, which was even more hateful of men but curiously weren’t assigned any theory written by women who denounced this feminist jihad on the arts and every other aspect of life.

Thanks to the feminist movement this rise of woman has emasculated men to “being deadbeats or players” and is well on its way to making traditional gender roles in relationships and marriages obsolete. Because women think they can do it all, men expect them to and this has turned many men into Peter Pans, who delay commitment, refuse to man up, and demand women go Dutch on dates.

A Time article Women, Money & Power glorified the new Pan trend of stay at home dads and female bread winners.  The writer notes “Danny graduated from the University of Michigan and took a job in finance, but he rebelled at the crushing hours. So in the mid-’90s, he left to become a stay-at-home dad to his two daughters.”  My first reaction was how pathetic and Danny needs to man up.

I would argue the majority of women don’t  like this role reversal and if they had guns held to their heads would admit it as much. Time writer Liza Mundy observed “One university vice president admitted that when she was dating, she took pains not to let men walk her to her car, for fear her BMW might make them feel inadequate.”

Women need to start making men feel inadequate and force them to act like men not boys again. In our quest for independence, women have made things far too easy and comfortable for men. Where women are failing is lying to ourselves about what we really want. This new paradigm where men depend upon women for economic stability is screwed up and doesn’t sound like female sexual freedom to me but a life of purgatory.

A male friend quipped recently during conversation on the topic “women make it too easy for men now and you don’t seem to have a need for us so why should we grow up.” The time has come for women who believe in traditional gender roles to give Peter Pan the heave hoe and tell him don’t come knocking again until you’re wearing your man shoes and pants. Don Draper of Mad Men certainly isn’t the perfect man but he knows what the definition of a man  is, a provider who protects the homestead, doesn’t shrink from his responsibility and when needed tells a woman “this is the way is going to be done.” Let the revolution of woman begin a new!

 

Weiner Undone and Politically Skewered by Dems

Friday, June 17th, 2011

Little Weiner finally decided to resign from office. When you are a Congressman and your name because publicly associated with a porn actress, photos of your erect penis and six different women, none of whom are your wife, you should probably resign. After three weeks of dragging his party and wife in the mud with his unseemly behavior of sexting and lies, Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY) resigned Thursday.

He apologized for the “embarrassment” he caused his constituents and wife. This should have been his script three weeks ago. The moment the photo of his underwear clad crotch, featuring his erect penis was exposed by the news media, Weiner should have come clean he emailed the photo over his twitter account. Then he wouldn’t be resigning in such a disgraced fashion– first having denied the charges, then admitting to them and haughtily refusing to leave office.

Instead he accused Andrew Brietbart, editor of www.biggovernment.com of hacking his twitter account and sending the lewd photo. Brietbart first reported May 28th that Weiner sent the photo to a Seattle college student Weiner followed on Twitter.

But when Weiner said he couldn’t be sure with “certitude” the photo sent via his Twitter account wasn’t a picture of his “junk,” everyone knew he was lying. The problem with lying to the news media as an elected official is the press always finds out. One only need look back in time for examples (former South Carolina Governor Sanford’s lie about hiking and Bill Clinton’s “I did not have sex with that woman”). Despite holding a tearful press conference, June 6th, admitting he was a mendacious, pervert, Weiner refused to resign.

As Weiner retreated from the public eye to seek “counsel” more embarrassing photos of Weiner erupted onto the scene and other women admitted receiving sexual photos. Weiner’s three weeks of shame not only knocked Democrats off their Mediscare tirade but read like a cheap romance novel.

Weiner’s behavior certainly wasn’t befitting of a member of Congress but if he was pressured to resign by President Obama, the most powerful Democrat, along with House Minority Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic National Committee Chairman Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, why wasn’t Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) forced to resign over his scandal?

For 18 months Rangel was allowed to remain chairman of the House Ways & Means Committee, which writes tax law while he was being investigated for tax evasion and other unseemly ethics violations. No Democrat or Obama for that matter called for Rangel’s resignation, even after he was censured by the House and found guilty of 11 ethics violations.

If resignation was good enough for Weiner, it should have been good enough for Rangel. Democrats made an example of Weiner because his story was sucking the air out their political agenda. It seems Democrats ethical standards change depending upon what direction the political winds are blowing. I guess Charlie was just lucky.

Dems+Dirty Little Secrets of For-Profit Colleges

Tuesday, February 22nd, 2011

For profit colleges have lots of dirty little secrets they want to hide from the public. Focused more on dollars than minds, most for-profit colleges charge unsuspecting students much more than private non-profit colleges; their students get deep in debt and are often left empty handed. Apparently, a student’s education can be wasted but not a dime in the for-profit college world.

If “countless low-income and minority students”, many of whom are single parents are heavy enrollees in for-profit schools, as Democrats and members of the Congressional Black Caucus noted in letters to the Department of Education, why are these same LIBERAL members of Congress blocking a crackdown on the for-profit college scam? I thought Democrats are supposed to be protectors of the poor and minorities? Last week, 58 Democrats, including Pelosi, joined nearly every House Republican except four and voted for The Foxx-Kline-Hastings-McCarthy amendment to HR 1, to stop the regulation.

An August 2010 Government Accountability Report (GAO) report of 15 for-profit colleges found they engaged in deceptive practices, including encouraging students to lie on financial aid forms and “exaggerating” earning potential these associate degrees or certificates give students. One undercover applicant wanted a message therapy certificate and was told by a for-profit college that its program was a great value at $14,000. But according to GAO, the same program would cost $520 at a community college.

Why does this matter? Because many for-profit colleges are reaping HUGE taxpayer dollars in profits from federal financial aid loans and not giving students a good return on their investment.

In 2009, students at for-profit colleges received more than $4 billion in Pell Grants and more than $20 billion in federal loans from the Department of Education. According to the Career College Association, which represents for-profit colleges, 43% of its students are minorities. Not only are more blacks and Hispanics getting hoodwinked into debt for certificates and associate degrees, which have limited job buying power, according to the Department of Education only about half of these student borrowers are paying back their loans compared to 88% at private non-profit colleges.

The Department of Education wants to stop the swindling. Federal law requires colleges receiving financial aid for “career education programs” to “prepare students for gainful employment in a recognized occupation.” Last year, the Department of Education issued its Gainful Employment rule which will require for-profit colleges to prove their students can get work after completing programs or be ineligible to receive federal student loans. This is to prevent students being sandbagged by deceptive marketing practices and left with flimsy degrees and a mountain of debt.

The Department of Education expects to issue the final regulation early this year but a band of Democrats along with Republicans wants to block meaningful reform to protect for-profit schools and possibly donations to their campaigns. The Foxx-Kline-Hastings-McCarthy amendment to HR1 (FY2011 Continuing Appropriations Act) stops the administration from implementing the new regulation. Republicans Virginia Fox (R-NC) and John Kline (R-MN) are the Republicans who joined Democrats in sponsoring the amendment.

Coincidentally, members of Congress from states where for-profit colleges operate were some of the first to support the amendment: Reps. Alcee Hastings (D-FL), Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), Donald Payne (D-NJ), Ed Towns (D-NY), Ted Deutch (D-FL), Eliot Engel (D-NY), Jason Altmire (D-PA), Robert Brady (D-PA), and Andre Carson (D-IN).

Congressional Black Caucus members also voted for the amendment. They include: Hastings, Towns, Carson, Payne, Reps. Bobby Scott (D-VA), and Charlie Rangel (D-NY). If one of the CBC’s goals is to “close the achievement and opportunity gaps in education,” why would its members be against the Department of Education’s program? Could campaign donations from for-profit colleges to CBC members have something to do with it?

This is yet another example of Democrats not practicing the race politics of what they preach that they care about Blacks and other minority groups. Democrat policies continue to enslave Blacks economically, as evidenced by this amendment. Yet, every election cycle liberal politicians run on campaign promises to help lift blacks out of their impoverished state. Many blacks fall for this promise, voting en masse for Democrats, only to have the Donkey party throw them under the bus time and time again.

It isn’t in the Democrat party’s best interest for more blacks to become educated or economically empowered because then what campaign promises would Democrats have left to lure the black vote. Black people: Wake up!

Obama’s Pac-Man Budget

Thursday, February 17th, 2011

Someone asked me this week if President Obama is completely disconnected from reality and the dire shape the country is in? I replied YES, it appears so. Mr. Obama is failing as a leader. Rather than put aside his hardened, leftist, ideological political beliefs and acting like the President of the United States of America, Obama dug his heels in even more this week, announcing a $3.7 trillion budget. I repeat a $3.7 TRILLION budget with faint attention paid to the country’s ENORMOUS $14 trillion debt.

His obese budget would make a scant puncture in the percentage of spending which accounts for the US gross domestic product. Currently, federal spending is 25% of GDP and under the president’s proposed budget would only decline to 23% of GDP next year. This year the federal government’s deficit will be $1.6 trillion, the highest as a percentage of the economy since World War II. Under Obama’s 2012 budget proposal, the deficit would only drop to $1.1 trillion.

When Clinton left the White House, federal spending was 18.4% of GDP. In 2008, when Bush left office after eight years, federal spending was 20% of GDP.

Instead of taming the budget beast and our debt, Obama has added to it in grand fashion. Obamacare, a stimulus, bank, auto, housing bailouts, and cash for clunkers are a few of Obama’s favorite failed programs which increased the GDP in two short years by twice the amount Bush did in his eight years in office.

This doesn’t look like Winning the Future, as Obama advertises his budget on www.whitehouse.gov. It should be called Losing America’s Future. His proposal isn’t serious; doesn’t address serious cuts in entitlement programs, Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security which like a Pac-Man chews up 40% of federal spending. Nor does the president tackle the $1 trillion, job-killing Obamacare or the debit commission’s recommendations. His cuts would only amount to $1.1 trillion in deficit reductions over 10 years.

During his February 15th press conference, the president claimed “We’re not going to be running up the credit card anymore” but that’s exactly what his budget does.

His whopper of a budget calls for wasteful investments: $53 billion in high speed railroads, which should be privatized, $50million to the EPA, $584 million to environmental research and innovation. And investing $13 billion in the IRS so they can hire 5,100 agents to shakedown American taxpayers for the $300 billion tax gap, which the Wall Street Journal reported as the difference between what Congress thinks Americans owe and what the IRS collects.

Only one third of the president’s proposed cuts would come from freezing domestic discretionary spending, the rest would largely come from his ASSAULT on higher income Americans and businesses. You guessed it, Obama wants increase taxes on the so called rich and businesses by $327 billion over the next decade. Another $321 billion would be reaped from limiting the use of itemized tax deductions those so-called, hardworking “wealthy” Americans use like charitable contributions and mortgage interest.

And of course the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2012 for families earning incomes over $250,000 and $200,000 for individuals. To borrow a refrain from the Tea Party movement, we’re taxed enough already! Study after study shows, when you raise taxes on higher income earners, federal tax revenue goes down because people work less and find ways to reduce their taxable income. End of story.

Another $336 billion would come from more taxing businesses more: including new taxes on banking, petroleum and coal industries, and raising unemployment taxes for businesses. It is completely anti-American, free-markets and anti-competitive to tax people who work harder and longer hours more.

As Orin Hatch observed, “The Obama administration hits almost every sector of our economy with a tax hike-energy taxes, taxes on hiring, higher income takes. That’s not how we get our country moving forward.” No this isn’t how you move the country forward but this is how you drive the country off a very high cliff, which is what this president is doing.

Obama proclaimed in his press conference, “We owe the American people a government that lives within its means.” The big question is when he is going to start practicing what he preaches.