Study finds Ugly Guys and Beautiful Women discriminated against in Getting Job Interviews

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 1st, 2012

Week in Review

Here’s an interesting study.  One to give you pause the next time you don’t get called for a job interview (see Don’t hate me because I’m beautiful posted 3/31/2012 on The Economist).

Bradley Ruffle at Ben-Gurion University and Ze’ev Shtudiner at Ariel University Centre looked at what happens when job hunters include photos with their curricula vitae, as is the norm in much of Europe and Asia. The pair sent fictional applications to over 2,500 real-life vacancies. For each job, they sent two very similar résumés, one with a photo, one without. Subjects had previously been graded for their attractiveness.

For men, the results were as expected. Hunks were more likely to be called for an interview if they included a photo. Ugly men were better off not including one. However, for women this was reversed. Attractive females were less likely to be offered an interview if they included a mugshot. When applying directly to a company (rather than through an agency) an attractive woman would need to send out 11 CVs on average before getting an interview; an equally qualified plain one just seven.

Fascinating.  Handsome men get interviews more often than beautiful women.  So what’s the common link that made this happen?  What, or who, discriminates against ugly guys AND beautiful women?  Are handsome men smarter than ugly guys as well as beautiful women?  No, I don’t think so.  For history is strewn with ugly guys that were brilliant.  Abraham Lincoln was a brilliant man.  Yet even he thought he was an ugly man.  Estée Lauder was a beautiful woman as well as a brilliant entrepreneur.  So, no, that theory appears not to hold much water.  So what could the source of this discrimination be?

So the cause of the discrimination must lie elsewhere. Human resources departments tend to be staffed mostly by women. Indeed, in the Israeli study, 93% of those tasked with selecting whom to invite for an interview were female. The researchers’ unavoidable—and unpalatable—conclusion is that old-fashioned jealousy led the women to discriminate against pretty candidates.

Ah, mystery solved.  It’s just old-fashioned jealousy.   Woman wanted to make things easier in the hiring process for the handsome man.  And more difficult for the beautiful woman.  For whatever reason.  Though we can guess.

Women may help men they are attracted to.  And they may not want to bring attractive women into the workplace.  Seeing them as competition.  Either for those handsome men.  Or in career advancement.  What G.L. Staines, T.E. Jayaratne, and C. Tavris called the queen bee syndrome.   Where a woman enjoys her advancement in the company.  But wants to be the only woman to advance in the company. 

Whatever the reason what is really interesting is that it’s women discriminating against women.  Something I’m sure the feminists probably never saw coming.  And something you’d love to hear them explain.  For only men were supposed to act this way.  And it turns our women can be just as human as men are.  Unfair decisions and all.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , ,

The Left Hates the Military, Repeals ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 31st, 2010

The Effete Left Retaliates for all those Wedgies

The liberal left hates the military.  Always have.  Always will.  It’s the manliness of the soldier these effeminate men hate.  Being weak on testosterone, the effete male tucks his tail between his legs and scurries away in the presence of the alpha male.  When they were in grade school getting wedgies.   When girls rejected them in high school.  Or when a woman’s husband caught them in an adulterous act.  They ran away.  They didn’t fight.  Which is why they hate the military.  Because they will fight to protect themselves.  Their fellow soldiers.  Their family.  God.  And country.

The Left has always had the military in their crosshairs.  To defund it as much as possible.  To boot ROTC off college campuses.  To protect the rights of a Muslim extremist in the U.S. Army that went on a murdering rampage on an Army post.  Anything to destroy the military.  They just don’t like it.  So when they fought to repeal ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’, they didn’t do it to help gays who want to serve in the military.  They did it to further damage the military.  At least, that is their hope.

They hate gay soldiers as much as they hate straight soldiers.  Because a gay soldier is still an alpha male.  A tough guy.  Willing to fight to protect himself, his fellow soldiers, his family, God and country.  Everything that the effete left hates.  They see a gay soldier as just another tough guy that probably kicked their ass back in high school.  No, they pushed for this because a lot in the military were against it.  Not because they’re all homophobes.  But because it will radically change the military.

War is Hell and not for the Effete

To take boys and make them into soldiers in a short time requires a little shock and awe.  Training is hard.  And horrible.  The more horrible it is the less horrible actual combat will be.  That’s how you make boys into men.  Desensitize them.  How you keep them from panicking while chaos reigns all around them.  It’s how you keep soldiers alive in combat. 

Marine basic training was pretty harsh during the Vietnam War.  They’ve since lightened up a little since that time portrayed by R. Lee Ermey in Full Metal Jacket.  Ermey was in fact a drill instructor in the U.S. Marine Corps.  And he served in Vietnam.  Much of his lines in that movie were ad lib.  Drawn from his personal experience.  He was a real bastard in the movie.  But a great drill instructor.  I met Ermey at an air show one summer.  While I waited in line to get his autograph, there were Marines ahead of me past and present.  What did they want?  They wanted Ermey to tell them to drop and give him 20.  And he did.  It was a high honor indeed for these Marines.  He’s a god to them.  Because he made tough Marines.  Ermey’s the real deal.  And, though retired, he still serves his beloved Corps.  Once a Marine, always a Marine.

So what did these men go through in basic training?  Something like this (WARNING: The following video contains explicit language and adult content):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLDaZvTfU9k

Now, imagine Sergeant Hartman dressing down an openly gay man in that scene.  And how fast the ACLU would file suit.

You can say that much of what he said and done was inappropriate.  But when you’re training killers, you emphasize the chest thumping, testosterone teeming, alpha-male manly stuff.  So you call recruits ladies.  And homosexuals.  Until they prove themselves lean, mean and tough as mother [deleted expletive] who want to cut out the enemy’s living guts and use them to grease the treads of their tanks.  That last was borrowed from the movie Patton.  And that classic George C. Scott scene can be seen here:

War is hell.  And a manly thing.  It is not for the faint of heart.  As William Tecumseh Sherman said, the more horrible it is, the quicker it will be over.  And the less lives lost.  An effete liberal male, on the other hand, disdains such brutality.  They’d prefer to sit down with our enemies and resolve our differences through diplomacy.  Like the Allies did with Hitler.  Who lied.  We gave him the Sudetenland.  And he took the rest of Czechoslovakia.  Then Poland, launching World War II.  After we got his word that he wouldn’t.

The Ivy League Hates the Military and ROTC

There are some tough gay mother [deleted expletive] serving in the military.  But they’ve been hiding their sexuality.  Which for the above reasons is a good thing.  Now they’ve repealed ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’.  So now when a drill instructor slips and calls a recruit a lady or a homosexual, it’ll be a problem.   The Left will slip someone into basic training for just that reason.  So they can sue the military.  Because they hate the military.  It’s all that pent up frustration from all those wedgies.

The Ivy League hates the military.  They’ve kept ROTC off their campuses.  Because, they said, the military discriminates against gays.  Now that Obama has repealed ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’, will they welcome ROTC onto their campuses?  No.  Because they hate the military (see ‘Don’t ask, don’t tell’ has been repealed. ROTC still shouldn’t be on campus. by Colman McCarthy posted 12/30/2010 on The Washington Post).

To oppose ROTC, as I have since my college days in the 1960s, when my school enticed too many of my classmates into joining, is not to be anti-soldier. I admire those who join armies, whether America’s or the Taliban’s: for their discipline, for their loyalty to their buddies and to their principles, for their sacrifices to be away from home. In recent years, I’ve had several Iraq and Afghanistan combat veterans in my college classes. If only the peace movement were as populated by people of such resolve and daring.

Bull [deleted expletive].  He may admire a Taliban soldier, for they are killing American soldiers, but he hates American soldiers.  Who was it spitting on U.S. troops returning from Vietnam and calling them ‘baby killers’?  He and his fellow college students.  That’s who.

ROTC and its warrior ethic taint the intellectual purity of a school, if by purity we mean trying to rise above the foul idea that nations can kill and destroy their way to peace. If a school such as Harvard does sell out to the military, let it at least be honest and add a sign at its Cambridge front portal: Harvard, a Pentagon Annex.

Taint the intellectual purity of a school?  Give me a break.  The pompous and condescending Ivy League has tainted the intellectual and moral purity of a nation.  These people haven’t done a damn thing to make America great.  It’s the soldiers that have done that.  As Charles Province says so well:

It Is The Soldier

It is the Soldier, not the minister
Who has given us freedom of religion.

It is the Soldier, not the reporter
Who has given us freedom of the press.

It is the Soldier, not the poet
Who has given us freedom of speech.

It is the Soldier, not the campus organizer
Who has given us freedom to protest.

It is the Soldier, not the lawyer
Who has given us the right to a fair trial.

It is the Soldier, not the politician
Who has given us the right to vote.

It is the Soldier who salutes the flag,
Who serves beneath the flag,
And whose coffin is draped by the flag,
Who allows the protester to burn the flag.

Charles Michael Province, U.S. Army 

The Left Hopes Gays will Hurt the Military

God bless the soldiers.  The Marines.  The sailors.  The airmen.  And all who serve.

If you hate the military you hate the people in the military.  No matter how you try to spin it.  Do you think a liberal would let his daughter marry a soldier?  Would Colman McCarthy welcome a soldier into his family?  Or would he sneer with contempt?  I’m guessing the contempt thing.  So they don’t like the military.  Or the people serving.  And if you do, everything you do is against the military. 

And so it is with their fight to repeal ‘don’t ask, don’t tell’.  They’re probably laughing and making gay jokes just waiting for all the trouble to start.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

LESSONS LEARNED #46: “Liberals say ‘do as I say not as I do’ because they can’t point to anything worthwhile they’ve done.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 30th, 2010

The High Compliance Costs of The American with Disabilities Act of 1990

I have a friend who worked at a company that was renovating one of their buildings.  He was in a foul mood one day.  The renovation included a high-end sales and marketing center.  Some place to impress clients.  Included in the renovation was a media room for multimedia presentations.  It was a competitive business; they were looking to woo some clients away from their competitors.  And to keep their current client base from straying to the competition.

It was an existing building.  Space was tight.  They were trying to do a lot in a small footprint.  And they did.  I saw it one day before the work was completed.  Wow.  It was gorgeous.  Especially the media room.  It looked like something you saw in a 5-star hotel.  They built the control room for the media room on a raised platform.  Equipment racks would sit on the floor.  And the cabling would leave the racks through the raised floor and out into a floor duct wiring system.  The walls and ceiling were some nice architectural finishes.  There was no drop ceiling.  No place to conceal wiring but in the walls.  And in the floor.

Well, there was a problem.  The American with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) was relatively new.  This architectural firm complied with the new law in almost every place.  Drinking fountains were wheelchair accessible.  There were ramps to get up the curb so wheelchairs could enter the building.  And various other compliances.  The building complied.  Everywhere.  Everywhere, that is, but one area.  The control booth for the media room.  On the raised floor.  There was a step to enter this room.  And no space to add a ramp.  They fought the building inspectors.  The various authorities having jurisdiction.  But to no avail.  The spiffy new sales and marketing center would not be as designed.  They had to redesign it.  Rebuild it.  And delay the scheduled completion date.  Hence my friend’s foul mood.

The Government Exempts themselves from the High Compliance Costs of their own Legislation

You’d think the authorities having jurisdiction (AHJ) would have given a waiver.  But they didn’t.  It was a big office building.  And a small control room.  Less than 1% of the company’s total employees would ever enter that room.  Didn’t matter.  Some of the AHJ enjoyed their power.  Others were simply afraid someone would sue them down the road.  So they delayed the project. 

Unfortunately, they had already begun to relocate operations from the old to the new.  They suspended all presentations for a month at this facility so the old conference room could be demolished and rebuilt into something else.  And it was.  Demolished.  Now they had no place to wow their customers.  For another month or two.  That’s a whole quarter they had to reschedule around.  It did not impress their clients.  And may have cost them one or two.  All because of the silly inflexibility of the AHJ.

This is a good example of the unintended consequences of liberals’ best intentions.  It’s a microcosm of the ADA’s affect on business everywhere.  Sure, they had a noble goal.  To make a barrier-free world for all.  But the compliance costs to fully meet the letter of the law were brutal to small and medium sized businesses.  But Congress didn’t care.  It’s ‘do as I say, not as I do’.  Literally.  You see, Congress exempted themselves from the American with Disabilities Act of 1990.  Why?  Wait for it.  Because they said it would be too costly for them to comply.  And they said this publicly to justify their exemption from the act.  Unbelievable.  The height of arrogance and condescension.

The High Compliance Costs of OSHA

Well, Congress was dragged kicking and screaming into the real world.  Thanks to Newt Gingrich and the Republican Revolution of the 1994 midterm elections.  That Congress authored the Congressional Accountability Act of 1995.  Congress would no longer be above the law.  Now they, too, had to comply with the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 and the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970.  To name a few.

I have a friend who works in construction in a metropolitan area.  He’s a project manager for a construction manager.  And you should hear some of the things he tells me.  Big construction projects often have federal money involved.  And when they do, there are some pretty restrictive rules.  Especially on the big projects.  Why?  Because big projects have deep pockets.

You would not believe some of the Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) requirements on a construction project.  Well, on big projects, because no small contractor could afford the compliance costs.  Or the owner, for that matter.  A couple come to mind.  He said that a worker had to tie himself off when working on a ladder more than 6 feet off the ground (a nylon safety line tied to a body harness attached to something fixed and immovable).   Contractors had to conduct daily safety meetings with their field employees.  They had a safety trailer on site with a couple of safety officers to walk the site and police safety.  They had to get ‘hot work permits’ anytime they used a welding torch or other open flame.  You get the idea.  Workers couldn’t do anything dangerous without an inordinate investment in time and money on part of the contractor.  And yet workers still did stupid things.  Like refuse to wear a hardhat on a hot day.  Of course, when they did and OSHA happened to be on site, they’d write a pretty big fine.  And guess who had to pay it?  Not the employee.  But the employee’s boss.

But when Congress passed the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, they exempted themselves.  Because it would have cost them too much to comply.

The High Compliance Costs of Affirmative Action

But there’s more.  When federal money is involved, there are other hoops to jump through.  You see, the metropolitan area had a large minority population.  And the federal government wanted minority owned businesses to share in some of that construction money.  It was affirmative action.  To help minority owned businesses.  A certain percentage of the work was set aside for these businesses.  The problem was big projects have tight schedules and high-tech building processes.  The kind of work that big and established contractors do all of the time.  And the kind that little contractors starting out who need help (the kind of contractor the government wanted to help) had little to no experience doing.  The idea was for the big guy to mentor the little guy.  Which is not easy to do when competitively bidding work.  Helping these contractors earns no revenue.  It just adds cost.  So you either include the cost up front (and not get the job because you’re not the low bidder).  Or you leave it out and try and recoup it on the back end (I believe the technical term is raping and pillaging on change orders).

Well, there are rules.  And it starts at bid time.  Your bid form asks for the percentage of these minority businesses you’ll be using.  There’s a minimum required.  But you can use more.  And the government weighted things differently.  You counted contractors at their full contract value.  But material suppliers were discounted (I don’t remember, but it might have been 50%).  Suppliers are safer to use because you can use your own highly skilled work force.  So you max these out.  Then you use some small minority contractors on some easier work you can peel off from the rest.  It’s nothing against these guys.  They do well on some of the less exotic stuff.  But some of the other stuff is just over their skill level.  Because they’re new and inexperienced.

Now, because they can use suppliers, there are minority ‘suppliers’ out there looking to exploit this set aside.  They’re not really a supplier, though.  They’re a ‘pass-through’ company.  What they do is offer their services to basically buy from a contractor’s preferred supplier and then resell to the contractor for a small markup.  This basically defeats the whole point of helping minorities, but it helps you stay on schedule.  Construction today uses just-in-time deliveries.  Especially on construction site with no storage area available for material.  And they need their well established working relationships to feed their supply pipeline.  It usual works.  But sometime a contractor’s audit will disallow a previously approved ‘pass-through’ supplier.  And when they do, look out.  If you don’t meet the percentage you included on your bid form you’re looking at some serious fines.  My friend told me the government wrote this one poor contractor of his a fine greater than the value of his contract.

Liberal Legislation:  Compliance Costs, Avoidance Costs and Unintended Consequences

The federal government has no business experience.  At least, the liberal left.  But they’re always trying to make business better.  And fairer.  This results in huge compliance costs.  And avoidance costs.  The federal government has little sympathy for the swath of destruction their legislation causes.  Especially when they were exempting themselves from much of that legislation. 

But it’s ‘do as I say, not as I do’.  Because they feel they’re above the law.  Or, at least, should be.  So they continue to tinker.  Failing more times than not.  And causing a slew of unintended consequences.  Despite their best intentions.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

LESSONS LEARNED #12: “Feminists will forgive misogyny if the misogynist is a self-proclaimed feminist.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 6th, 2010

MOST WHO CONSIDER themselves feminists aren’t very militant.  And most aren’t probably that hardcore on the ‘equal’ thing.  Men and women are different.  They know this.  And that’s okay.  Many feminists don’t mind when a man holds a door for them.  Or that they have to sit down to pee.  You don’t have to be a man.  You can enjoy your femininity and have a career.  No one says you can’t.  Well, almost no one.

There is a very loud, a very angry and a very militant group of feminists that beg to differ.  It’s not that big of a group.  It seems like it, but that’s just because they get some prime exposure.  In the entertainment industry.  Some media outlets.  And through some rich and powerful friends.

This group believes in absolute equality.  You don’t dare hold a door for them.  Or compliment them on their appearance.  And if you ever think about patting them on the fanny, just realize that you may lose that hand in the process.  And probably your two best friends as well.  Then they’ll say something like “how do you like me now, bitch” to the newly castrated man.

Don’t call them the fairer sex.  Or the weaker sex.  They don’t like it.  They can be crude in their speech for they eschew any preconceived notions of lady-like behavior.    They’ll drop the f-bomb at will and ask a guy how’s it hanging.  They like their behavior rough and coarse.  Just like a man’s.  Like I said, absolute equality.

THESE HARDCORE MILITANT feminists (HMFs) have one overriding concern.  And that is not to let anything interfere with their chosen career or profession.  Anything.  And they’ve had some successes.  Glass ceilings have been shattering and restraints on women’s advancement are falling.  Everywhere.  Everywhere but one.  The uterus.

The HMFs don’t just eschew lady-like behavior, they detest the biological tyranny of the female reproductive system.  The uterus has destroyed more careers than the exclusivity of any old boys club.  Pregnancy.  The scourge of unbridled advancement in the HMF’s world.  Bodily change.  Leaves of absence.  And the possibility that the temporary leave may become a permanent one.  Motherhood.  Children.  The very thought of it sickens them.  And infuriates them.  It just ain’t fair.

They fight this oppression with religious fervor.  And their vehicle is reproductive rights.  Abortion.  It is their holy grail.  They’ve fought long and hard to get it.  And, by god, they intend to keep it.  And they base their political world on it.

At least, that’s what one would surmise based on the historical evidence.

CONDOLEEZA RICE HAS had a remarkable career that set a lot of firsts.  She has an incredible resume and achieved everything on it on her own.  From her PhD in political science to the third most powerful position in the country, Secretary of State, and everything in between, she worked hard and advanced herself.  On pure merit.  Unlike Hillary Clinton whose rise to fame was courtesy of the coattails of a successful man.

You would think that between the two, feminists would hold up Rice as the ideal.  She made it in the man’s world.  Shattered ceilings.  Set records.  Was in fact more successful than most men.  Clinton had to go old school and rely on a successful marriage for political success.  But, of course, it is Clinton they hold up as the ideal.  Not Rice.  Why?

Clinton is a Democrat.  Rice is a Republican.  Clinton is pro-choice.  Rice is less so.  Though very religious, she is kind of libertarian when it comes to abortion.  She’s not pro on-demand abortion.  She believes there should be certain restrictions.  And that’s enough.  Between the two, Clinton supports abortion more.  So the HMFs hold her up as the ideal.

STAND BY YOUR man.  Not exactly a feminist dictate.  If a woman’s husband has a history of extramarital activity, few feminists would say to stand by that man.  They may say something like if he has a problem keeping it in his pants, then just cut it off.  For there are few things as hurtful and humiliating than infidelity.

Bill Clinton has apparently had a problem of keeping it in his pants.  There’ve been many accusations about many women.  The Clintons met all of these with righteous indignation.  His wife attributed them to political attacks from a vast right wing conspiracy.  And she stood by her man.  Even after the infamous blue dress.

Well, it turned out that at least one of the accusations were true.  Now, Bill Clinton was personable, but he was no George Clooney.  Or a Tom Jones.  Women weren’t throwing their panties at him.  He just wasn’t sexy.  So it wasn’t a passionate animal attraction.  No, it wasn’t that.  It was power.  He was the most powerful man in America.  And she was just a 20 something year old intern.  He was 50ish.  He took advantage of her awe of his power.  And stuck his penis in her mouth.  And a cigar tube in her vagina.  But it wasn’t a big deal.  Most men just joked about it.  Thought it was pretty cool.  As long it wasn’t their daughter’s mouth.  Or their daughter’s vagina.

MEN ARE PIGS.  It’s no secret.  So it’s no big shock that a lot of men were okay with a little oral sex in the Oval Office.  They look at the young women in their offices.  They talk about them.  What they would like to do with them.  Some go too far.  Abuse their position of power.  They make inappropriate remarks.  Inappropriate contact.  And then all hell breaks loose.  And rightly so.

Get a job today and you have to sit through compulsory sexual harassment training.  Before you start working.  Employers live in fear of sexual harassment.  If they don’t do enough to prevent it, or if they don’t act fast enough when it happens, the lawyers sue.  The lawyers sue even when they do.  It’s a minefield.  One misstep along the way and BOOM.  Lawsuit.  We will not tolerate any abuse of power.  Unless, of course, you’re president of the United States.

WHAT IS MISOGYNY?  A hatred of women.  Objectifying them for pleasure.  The attitude that women are good for only one thing.  Sex.  A misogynist may ‘love’ being with women, but he doesn’t necessarily want to be with them.  Talk to them.  Or see them still there the following morning.  And he may leave cab fare out so they won’t be there later that evening after he’s ‘done’ with them.  Think of Charlie Harper from the television show Two and a Half Men.

A man that habitually cheats on his wife is a misogynist.  He doesn’t respect his wife.  Or the women he’s fooling around with.  He’s just having a good time.  Using them.  To fulfill some animal desire.  Thinking with the little head.  Always.

JFK was fooling around.  Teddy, too.  Two women died as a result.  Marilyn Monroe committed suicide.  Did she want more than JFK was willing to give?  Did she kill herself because of this?  We’ll never know.  All that we know is that she had sex with JFK.  And that she was depressed.

Ted Kennedy was probably going to have sex with Mary Jo Kopechne when he accidentally drove off that bridge.  His pregnant wife was home in bed at the time.  Kennedy panicked and left Kopechne to die.  This may have dashed his presidential ambitions, but he remained in the Senate for another 40 years or so.  A stalwart liberal.  The HMFs stood by him.  And JFK (posthumously, of course).  Teddy was pro-choice.  And a Catholic.  Talk about a coup for feminism.  They loved this man.  And never abandoned him.  I mean, Catholicism is about as anti-abortion as you can get.  In another era, the church would have excommunicated Teddy for such blasphemy.

The feminists never abandoned Clinton, either.  Bill or Hillary.  Why?  They’re pro-choice.  And with them in power, the HMFs know abortion will stay a choice.  So they will forgive the misogyny.  It’s like a ‘get out of jail free’ card.  In their world, he just didn’t do anything that bad.  Unlike someone else.

SAY THE NAME and the invectives fly.  Sarah Palin.  My, how the Left hates her.  And the HMFs.  Here’s another successful career woman, too.  She earned everything herself.  Didn’t marry into anything.  Again, a feminist ideal they could hold up for all young girls to emulate.  But they hate her.  Why?

They hate Sarah Palin because she’s that 1950s mom AND a successful career woman.  That just ain’t supposed to happen.  Remember, having babies is the scourge of career advancement.  Add to that the fact that she didn’t abort her last pregnancy after already having had 4 children.  Compound that with the fact that she didn’t change her mind about abortion after finding out her last baby would be born with Down Syndrome. 

Palin makes a mockery of the HMFs version of feminism.  Babies destroy careers.  Ergo, to succeed in a career, you can’t have babies.  But, being in a modern, liberated age, accidents happen.  And no one should punish a career woman for doing anything more than a man did.  She should be able to keep her career.  And abortion lets her.  That’s the model.  And then along comes Palin and blows that model all to hell.

THERE ARE MANY more examples.  All with a common theme.  Misogyny is okay as long as you are a feminist.  You can do pretty much whatever you want.  They won’t attack you.  They will, though, if you are pro-life.  Even if you only ‘lean’ pro-life.  Because if you take away abortion, the biological tyranny of the female reproductive system will go on unchecked.  And absolute equality will be but a fleeting memory.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

FUNDAMENTAL TRUTH #12: “Feminists will forgive misogyny if the misogynist is a self-proclaimed feminist.” -Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - May 4th, 2010

WHEN YOU FELL and scratched your knee, your mother kissed the booboo and wiped away your tears.  When you got lost at the store you cried until your mother found you.  And when she did, she hugged you and instantly made the world a safe and happy place again.  The best part of the first day of school had nothing to do with school.  It was after school when you saw your mother standing at the door, waiting for you.

Dads are important, too.  And they do a lot for us.  More than we can ever thank them for.  But when it comes to that nurturing love we ache for, it’s Mom we turn to.  Because moms are nurturing.

In most species, it is the female that nurtures her young while the male provides.  Or abandons.  That’s why Mother’s Day is a bigger holiday than Father’s Day.  When grown, you may have a beer with Dad on Father’s Day.  But you send flowers on Mother’s Day. 

There is a bond between mother and child.  That’s what spending 9 months together as one will do to you.  And it survives.  Even in divorce.  Traditionally, a divorce favors the mother when it comes to custody.  Because of their nurturing role.  And the father works to provide child support while the mother stays at home and nurtures their children.

FEMINISM CALLS FOR equality between the sexes.  Feminists note that employers pay women less then they pay men for the same work.  It’s an outrage, they say.  But is it?  Can a person’s sex factor into the ‘value’ of an employee?

Sorry, Mom, but the answer is ‘yes’.  At times.  Sometimes.  Not all times.  But sometimes.

When an employer is considering hiring someone, they have to consider many things.  Many candidates are thinking short-term.  They want a job.  They may pad their resume and say things during an interview they think the interviewer wants to hear.  Even lie.  Just a little.  It’s all about getting the job.  And if it turns out that they don’t like the job, why, they can always quit.

Employers are thinking long term.  They’re looking for someone who will be there next week.  And next year.  And the year after that.  No one comes ‘ready to work’.  It takes time to bring an employee on board and make them an integral part of the team.  And once they are integral, employers depend on them.  Need them.  Projects suffer when they’re down with the flu or take a leave of absence.  Others have to carry their load.  And if it’s near the end of a 3 year project, that can be difficult.  You need to make decisions based on the history of the past 2+ years.  And if that key employee isn’t there, neither is that history.  The project suffers.  The company suffers.

THE IDEAL EMPLOYEE is the father of the nuclear family.  The mother is home raising the children allowing the husband more time to work.  With a family to raise and provide for, the husband will go home after work to the family, not party, and go to bed at a reasonable hour and be on time the next morning.  There’s nothing like the yoke of responsibility to suck the wild out of a person.  Younger, single people have far less of a load to shoulder.  So they’re still living in the now.  And having fun.  And sometimes show up the next morning hung over. 

The father in the nuclear family provides stability.  Employers like stability.  They don’t like unpredictable, disordering change.  Because that kind of change throws wrenches into the works of a finely tuned machine.

Even though no employer will say it publicly, women can be wrench throwers.  If she has young children and she and her husband both work, chances are that the ‘nurturer’ will be the one staying home with the kids when they are sick or when the school is closed (due to weather, boiler problem, power outage, etc.).  She may be the one taking the kids to a midday dentist appointment.  She may be the one who takes the kids to and from day-care and can’t stay late if a meeting with an out of town design team runs long.  Or fly out of town to respond to a crisis. 

Most of these are often simply inconvenient annoyances.  Sometimes they come at bad times.  But it’s a small wrench and there’s barely a ripple in the ongoing operations.  But there’s something else.  A BIG wrench.  And this can really weigh into the hiring decision making process.

WOMEN HAVE UTERUSES.  Men don’t.  If a family adds another child, the father may miss a few days of work.  Maybe take a week or so off.  But he’s coming back.  It’s different with a woman.  She’s not coming back after a couple of days.  Or a week.  No.  She’ll be gone for months.  If she even comes back. 

If an employer is interviewing for a key position on a 3 year project, this has to be a consideration.  You can’t ask a woman her motherly intentions.  Unless you want to get sued.  And if you could, 3 years is a long time.  A career woman may change her mind in a year or so.  Or there could be an ‘accident’ that leads to a change of mind.  To use a sports analogy, it could be like signing a new quarterback to a 3 year contract to take the team to the Super Bowl.  And the addition of this key player makes a difference.  In year 2 of the contract they missed the Super Bowl by one game.  Year 3 is even better.  Then, just as the postseason is about to begin, your quarterback, your key employee, suffers an injury.  And the 3-year plan comes to an inglorious end with a loss in the first postseason game.

You just don’t hire people.  You invest in them.  As with all investments, you want to minimize your risks. That’s why, all things being equal between two candidates, a man may have more ‘value’ than a woman.  Because of that BIG wildcard.  The uterus.  It could gestate one day.  It’s what uteruses do.

THE HARCORE MILITANT feminists (HMFs) know this.  And they hate it. 

The HMFs are not a fan of the 1950s stay-at-home-and-raise-a-family mom.  No, they don’t like her at all.  That woman is a second class citizen in a man’s world.  At least in the HMF eyes.  She stays at home, chained to the stove, or the bed, to serve her man while he is out in the real world living life.  Building a career.  Having 3 martini lunches.  Having a bit on the side.  HMFs see this as the height of inequality.  They want to be that man.  They want the career.  The 3 martini lunches.  They want to enjoy a bit on the side.  They want to live life.

There is really only one thing that prevents a woman from being that man.  She can get pregnant.  She can have a baby.  And when she does, she may quit her job.  Give up on her career.  Stay at home, chained to the kitchen.  Or the bed.  Have more babies which perpetuates her wretched state.  This is why reproductive rights are such a fundamental issue with HMFs.  It allows them to be that man.  It lets them overcome that one fatal weakness: pregnancy.  This lets them work, and play, like a man. 

HARDCORE MILITANT FEMINSTS don’t hate men; they hate uteruses.  They are, in fact, misogynists.  For it is the very essence of womanhood that they hate.  Motherhood.  They find it demeaning.  It’s a game changer that takes them out of the game.  That’s why they don’t hate their fellow misogynists.  No, they don’t hate them; they admire them.  They admire the power.  And that is, after all, what they want.  Power.  Go ahead and do as you do as long as you let me do it, too.  Give me the power to climb any mountain.  To negotiate any obstacle.  To get rid of any inconvenient pregnancy.  Let me have an abortion.  You do that and I will always support you no matter what you do.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,