NFL Cheerleaders are suing for a Livable Wage for their 300 Hours of Annual Work

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 26th, 2014

Week in Review

If you were in the ‘in’ crowd in high school the most ‘in’ people were the quarterback of the football team and the head cheerleader.  Typically the best looking guy and girl in high school.  This is why girls want to be cheerleaders.  Because only pretty and popular girls are cheerleaders.  These girls don’t get paid.  And that’s okay.  Because they do it for the privilege of wearing that cheerleader uniform.  And being part of the ‘in’ crowd.

There’s a fascination with cheerleaders.  Men like them so much they made a porno movie about a girl trying to make a football cheerleader squad that wasn’t the Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders but looked like it was.  Debbie Does Dallas.  A porn bestselling video.  Because men like cheerleaders.  For they are toned, fit and beautiful.  And they wear revealing outfits.  Which is why NFL cheerleaders are sexy.

Women try hard to become NFL cheerleaders.  But only toned, fit and beautiful women get to be cheerleaders.  Which is why women work so hard to be toned, fit and beautiful.  So they can go to cheerleader tryouts and best the competition.  To win that honor of wearing an NFL cheerleader uniform.  At least, that’s how it has been until now (see String of Cheerleader Lawsuits the Next Headache for the NFL by Tierney Sneed posted 4/25/2014 on US News and World Report).

What will become of the Buffalo Jills, the cheerleaders that are on the sidelines for Buffalo Bills games? A lawsuit alleging lower than minimum wage earnings and other New York labor law violations filed by five former Buffalo Jills has caused the suspension of the squad, and taken with a pair of similar suits, is creating yet another public relations cloud over the National Football League.

Stephanie Mateczun – president of Stejon Productions Corp., the third-party production company that manages the Jills and was named in the suit alongside the team – confirmed the organization’s activities had ceased indefinitely as a result of the lawsuit, filed in New York Supreme Court Tuesday…

The Jills’ lawsuit is the third case to be brought up by an NFL team’s cheerleaders against their respective organization this year. Each case – the first, a class action suit filed in January against the Oakland Raiders, and the second, launched in February by a Ben-Gals cheerleader against the Cincinnati Bengals – is unique in its specifics…

The string of cases, as well as leaked copies of cheerleader handbooks from other teams, suggest the alleged mistreatment of cheerleaders is a league-wide problem. They are often paid per game, with hours spent practicing or at off-field events left uncompensated. They are also held to standards unthinkable in most workplaces: regular weigh-ins, costly requirements for certain hair and beauty treatments, and restrictions on who they date and what they post to social media…

Similar claims were made in the next suit to follow, filed by Ben-Gals’ cheerleader Alexa Brenneman against the Bengals in February. It suggests she made less than $2.85 an hour for her 300 hours of work during the season, well below Ohio’s $7.85 an hour minimum wage. The Jills suit likewise describes an alleged violation of New York minimum wage laws, and also details what it calls “demeaning and degrading treatment” at Jills events where the cheerleaders supposedly faced “lecherous stares,” “degrading sexual comments” and “inappropriate touching…”

“The issue here is … how we treat our workers in this country,” Dolce, of the Jills case, says – which is why he thinks the NFL should be paying attention as well. “I know it’s not a central issue for the NFL, but in terms of worker rights and human rights and gender politics, it shouldn’t just be ignored…”

The controversy isn’t sitting well with the NFL’s current  marketing outreach to female fans. A Change.org petition launched before the lawsuits were filed demands teams across the league provide their cheerleaders with livable salaries – and it has more than 100,000 signatures.

Livable salaries?  Cheerleading is not a job.  It’s a thing to do for fun.  That thing these women may enjoy unlike their day job.  Which provides their livable salaries.  Not their cheerleader earnings.  I mean, who can work only 300 hours a year and expect to pay all of their bills?

Cheerleading can’t be that horrible.  Because women go to cheerleader tryouts to make the squad.  And abide by all the rules to remain a cheerleader.  If it was so horrible they wouldn’t do this.  But they do.  And they’re not doing this for the money.  For we know they don’t make any money being a cheerleader.  No.  They do this because they love it.

You know who’s happy now?  Teams that don’t have cheerleaders.  And if they were considering adding them you can bet they won’t now.  In fact, those teams that do may consider dropping theirs.  For here’s a startling fact.  Cheerleaders don’t win games.  The only time most people even see them is coming out of a commercial break.  Then they’re gone.  As the football game fills widescreen televisions across the country.  They are trying to use cheerleaders to make the stadium experience special as a lot of people these days prefer watching football at home on their widescreen televisions.  Making it harder to sell out some home games.  But it is doubtful people are going to buy tickets for a game because they may be able to talk to a cheerleader.  No matter how pretty or sexy they are.  Because people love football more.

Teams may make some money with their cheerleaders.  But it’s probably not enough to justify these legal headaches.  So NFL cheerleaders may soon be a thing of the past.  Something most football fans probably won’t even notice.  For few in a big stadium can even see them.  And those watching on television may catch a glimpse of them but that’s not why they’re tuning in.  No, the people who will most notice the passing of the NFL cheerleader are the cheerleaders.  And the women who wanted to try out to become a cheerleader.  Something they may have dreamed about since high school.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Catholic Women have more Sex and that Sex is more Satisfying

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 26th, 2014

Week in Review

The Democrats get the youth vote.  Because the Democrats aren’t these kids’ parents.  After a lifetime (i.e., high school) of their parents telling them ‘no’ after they turn 18 they turn on their parents.  And start voting Democrat.  Wait until you’re married before having sex?  I think not, Mom & Dad.  Because there isn’t anything wrong with having cheap meaningless sex with a bunch of different people.  The Democrats understand this.  And provide these young women with birth control and access to abortion so they can have a lot of casual sex without any consequences.  Of course, a lot of this sex won’t be very good (see Devout Catholics Have Better Sex, Study Says by Elizabeth Flock posted 7/17/2013 on US News and World Report—an older article appearing in their Twitter feed this past week).

Devout, married Catholics have the best sex of any demographic group, the Family Research Council said at an event Wednesday, pointing to a collection of studies from the last several decades.

The socially conservative Christian group relied heavily on statistics from the University of Chicago’s last National Health and Social Life Survey, conducted in 1992, which found the most enjoyable and most frequent sex occurring among married people, those who attended church weekly – any church, whether Catholic or not – and people who had the least sexual partners…

The notion that Catholics have better sex isn’t a new one, especially coming from Catholics. In 1994, Andrew Greeley, a Catholic sociologist and priest, published “Sex: The Catholic Experience,” which released a litany of new statistics: 68 percent of Catholics professed to have sex at least once a week versus 56 percent of non-Catholics; 30 percent of Catholics had bought erotic underwear versus 20 percent non-Catholics; and 80 percent of devout Catholic women approved of having sex for pleasure alone.

Girls go to parties where guys ply them with alcohol.  To get them drunk enough to lower their inhibitions.  A Girl may want to be relaxed enough to be with a guy she likes.  While a guy may just want to get her drunk so she can’t say ‘no’.  One thing for sure, though, whatever happens won’t be the subject of any romance novel.  It could be a scene in a porn movie.  But it sure won’t end up on the big screen in a love story.

Let’s face it, any sex where being inebriated is a prerequisite just isn’t going to be that good.  Or memorable.  Further, it is likely to leave a woman filled with shame or regret.  As she worries about what she did.  With whom she did it with.  And then the questions to fret over.  Did she take any precautions?  Is she pregnant?  Did she catch a sexually transmitted disease?  Did someone make a video of her while she was passed out and naked?  Doing things to her?  Is she going to see herself on the Internet?  Will her friends and her family see her on the Internet?  Her professors?  Her boss?  Will this come up should she decide to run for public office?

To have the same frequency of sex married women have may leave her with more feelings of shame and regret.  And an emptiness.  For while she is having sex a married woman is making love.  For a married woman doesn’t have to get drunk to lower her inhibitions.  For there are no inhibitions to lower.  She doesn’t have to worry about catching an STD.  And if she gets pregnant it may be because she wanted to get pregnant.  Also, there is no shame and regret the day after.  For a married woman is not coming home disheveled the following morning.  Where her neighbors can see her wearing the same clothes she had on the night before.  And see her underwear fall out of her purse while digging out her keys.

For a married woman sex is about love-making.  Sharing intimate moments with the person she loves.  Someone she wants to please.  Just as her husband wants to please her.  As well as honor her and protect her.  He won’t be posting any videos of her passed out and naked on the Internet.  Sure, they may leave the bathroom door open, but there’s honor and protection.  As well as an active sex life spiced up with things like erotic underwear.

So what are the Democrats really doing to our young women by being anti-parents?  Opening them up to a lot of shame and regret.  And worse.  Democrats are ruining their sex lives.  For using birth control and abortion to stay unmarried only makes their sex lives less fulfilling.  At least according to this study.  And it’s rather ironic that the women who oppose birth control and abortion (i.e., Catholics) are having better sex lives than those who don’t.  So once again their parents were right.  Even when it comes to waiting until marriage to have sex.  For if you do it will apparently blow your socks off.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Free Birth Control is no more Necessary for a Healthy Life than having Breast Implants

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 20th, 2014

Week in Review

Gays and lesbians have fought for same-sex marriage.  Because they want to be like traditional couples.  A man and a woman entering wedded bliss.  With all of the legal and employer spousal benefits that come with it.  Even while feminists decry the institution of marriage as enslaving women into a loveless relationship where women are cooks in the kitchen, maids in the house and whores in the bedroom.

Bradley Manning became Chelsea Manning after being arrested for leaking classified documents.  Chelsea is now asking for the government to pay for hormone treatment therapy to become physically a woman.  And that denying this costly treatment was cruel and unusual punishment.

So there is a lot of pressure to help people become what they want to be.  And some argue that tax money should pay to help them.  As well as rewrite our laws.  But how far should this go?  How far should we go to help people who are unhappy with their circumstance in life (see Men are funding breast implants for women they’ve never met in exchange for their attention online. That’s pathetic by William Henderson posted 4/16/2014 on The Telegraph)?

I’ve just been reading an article about a woman in the north of England whose breast implants were paid for by strangers. In just three months, 23-year-old Gemini Smith from Northumbria raised the £4,450 needed to transform her from a 34A to a 34DD, and it’s all thanks to MyFreeImplants.com – or rather, the men who use it. This is a website for women who feel unhappy in the chest department but lack the funds to change it. They create a profile explaining why they would like breast implants and why they can’t afford them, and are given a dollar for each message they receive; men are invited to buy chat credits in order to send them messages, and are offered “… direct access to thousands of women seeking friendship and your help in obtaining the body they’ve always dreamed of”.

Should the taxpayers pay for breast implants, too?  As having small breasts is causing some women pain in their lives.  For they don’t feel as attractive as women with larger breasts.  As men tend to look at women with larger breasts.  Because men are pigs.  Yet these women want these pigs to look at them.  And suffer pain when they don’t.

One wonders where the feminists would fall on this issue.  As providing free birth control is no more necessary for a healthy life than having breast implants.  But women getting breast implants are seeking acceptance based on how attractive men find them.  Which runs contrary to feminism.  Much like feeding women free birth control so they can please as many men as possible sexually.  Placing a woman’s sexuality at the core of her being.  Again, something that kind of runs contrary to feminism.  And the left.

Which makes the left’s obsession with same-sex marriage puzzling.  As they are trying everything within their power to help women live without having to marry a man.  While at the same time they are doing everything they can to help same-sex couples do what they try so hard to prevent women from having to do.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , ,

Postponing Motherhood may be good for Busy Women but not for their Children

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 17th, 2014

Week in Review

Once upon a time I was having a conversation with a consultant.  He was bald.  And not in the best of shape.  He looked older than he was.  He started a family later in life.  And one of the worst days of his life was when a waitress said how cute his grandson was.  Because he looked like a grandfather.  Even though he was only a father.

I had a coworker who died from a heart attack while on vacation.  Running around with his grade-school-aged children.  Another father who started his family later in life.  It was not a problem for him.  For men don’t have a biological clock ticking.  So they can start a family as late as they want to in their life.  But they may not live to see their children graduate from high school.  Which is a horrible thing for a child.

This was something women were spared.  Because they have a biological clock ticking.  And couldn’t put off becoming a mother until they were ‘grandmother age’.  Until now, that is (see Later, Baby: Will Freezing Your Eggs Free Your Career? by Emma Rosenblum posted 4/17/2014 on BloombergBusinessweek Technology).

LaJoie fits the typical profile of an egg freezer: They’re great at their jobs, they make a ton of money, and they’ve followed all of Sheryl Sandberg’s advice. But the husband and baby haven’t materialized, and they can recite the stats about their rapidly decreasing fertility as a depressing party trick. For LaJoie, now 45, it was demoralizing to see friend after friend get married and have kids, while she was stuck at the hospital without romantic prospects.

“You feel bad about yourself, like you’re the odd man out, and somehow you’ve messed up on your path,” says Sarah Elizabeth Richards, who spent $50,000 freezing several rounds of eggs in 2006 to 2008 and wrote a book about the experience, Motherhood, Rescheduled: The New Frontier of Egg Freezing and the Women Who Tried It. “By freezing, you’ve done something about it. You’re walking taller; your head is held higher. And that can pay off in both your work and romantic lives.” Richards, now 43, is dating someone promising and says she’d like to thaw her eggs in the next year or so. She’s also at work on a new book and plans on finishing it before she tries to get pregnant. “Egg freezing gives you the gift of time to start a family, but it’s also, like, here’s how many years I actually have left for my other goals—what can I do with them?”

LaJoie got married soon after she froze (she told her husband about it on their very first date: “I was upfront and said, ‘This is my plan.’ He was, like, ‘OK!’ ”) and had her first baby naturally at 39. A few years later, after briefly trying fertility drugs, she thawed her eggs. The implantation worked, and her second son is 2 years old.

This is great news for women who want to conveniently work in the burden of being a mother somewhere in their busy schedules.  But when you have a child at 43 you will be 51 at that child’s high school graduation.  Old enough to be a grandmother.  While the grandmother may be in a nursing home.  Who may only see her grandchildren on holidays when they reluctantly visit her.  For nursing homes are not places children want to be.

And you could be dead by your child’s graduation.  For a lot of health issues can plague you by the time you turn 51.  Especially when you’re having your children in your 40s.  The risk of breast cancer increases with age.  The risk of hypertension and pre-eclampsia/eclampsia increase with age.  The risk of gestational diabetes increases with age.  The risk of heart disease increases with age.  As does the risk of other cancers, lupus, diabetes, pancreatitis, etc.  Things not that common for women in their 20s and 30s.  But more common for women over 40.

And babies have risks, too, when their mothers give birth when over 40.  The risk of stillbirths and miscarriages increase with age.  As does the risk for birth defects.  So it’s all well and good for the mother to postpone motherhood but it’s not the best thing for her children.  Who deserve young and healthy parents.  Who can run with them while on vacation.  And they deserve healthy grandparents to spoil them.  Things you may not be able to do if you postpone motherhood until after you’re 40.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Women and Men in the Exact Same Jobs are earning the Exact Same Income

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 13th, 2014

Week in Review

The Democrats are running out of ways to buy votes.  Which they desperately need as more people suffer the ravages of Obamacare.  Who will be entering the voting booth angry this fall.  Looking for someone to blame for taking away the health insurance and doctors they liked and wanted to keep.  And being that Obamacare was passed on purely partisan lines (no Republicans voted for it) the Democrats are sweating bullets as the midterm elections approach.  So they turn to an oldie but goldie.  The pay gap lie (see What pay gap? Young women out-earn men in cities, GOP pundit claims posted 4/8/2014 on PolitiFact).

We watched the debate play out between conservative pundit Sabrina Schaeffer and liberal pundit Elizabeth Plank on MSNBC’s The Reid Report, and again later between former White House adviser Anita Dunn and conservative pundit Genevieve Wood on CNN’s The Lead with Jake Tapper.

“If you compare women to men in the same job with similar background, similar experiences that they bring to the table, the wage gap all but disappears,” Wood said. “Women have made great strides. Instead of celebrating that, this is a political year, the White House wants to portray this war on women…”

PolitiFact has given you the nuts and bolts about the 77 cents statistic — you can read the two most important works in this area here and here. Basically, there is a wage gap, but it tends to disappear when you compare women and men in the exact same jobs who have the same levels of experience and education.

Well, there it is.  Equal pay for equal work.  When men and women have the same education, experience and skills doing the same job there is no pay gap.  Case closed.  In fact, single women without children are actually earning more than single men.  Which is the key to this argument.  For a woman’s earnings fall with interruptions in her career as she takes time off to have children.  Or works reduced hours to care for her children.  This is where the pay gap comes in.  When you compare apples and oranges.  Comparing women who take time off or cut back their working hours or take lower paying jobs that allow her to spend more time with her children to men who don’t.  Because they’re single.  Or are married and have a wife who takes time off to spend more time with their children.

In fact, women are making great strides.  At the expense of men (see Is the Gender Pay Gap Closing or Has Progress Stalled? by Josh Zumbrun posted 4/11/2014 on The Wall Street Journal).

“There’s no question that one of the things that ‘77 cents’ doesn’t emphasize is that there’s been enormous gains,” said Harvard University economist Claudia Goldin.

Looking at the data above shows three clear trends that have emerged since the 1970s:

1) The spread between the sexes narrowed between 1970 and 2000. It has made little progress since.

2) Men have made no income gains in over four decades. Adjusted for inflation, men earn less today than they did in 1972.

3) Women continued to make gains until the recession began. Whatever forces slowed the income growth of men from 1970 to 2000 did not halt the income growth of women.

Simple economics.  Supply and demand.  Men were making more and more every year.  Until the Sexual Revolution.  When women began to flood the labor market.  With more labor available the cost of labor fell.  So as women gained education and experience the supply of educated and experienced workers grew.  Allowing employers to pay less for these now more plentiful educated and experienced workers.  Which is why as women enjoyed income gains men saw their income decline when adjusted for inflation.  Simple economics.  Supply and demand.

A long time ago in high school chemistry I remember my lab partner did not complete a homework assignment that was part 1 of a 2-part grade.  There was a homework part.  And a lab part.  Being a nice person I asked the teacher if we could share the grade on the homework part (which I had received an ‘A’ on.  Or a 4.0).  The teacher was more than generous.  He said, “Sure.  A 4.0 divided by 2 equals a 2.0 for each.”  Or, a ‘C’ for each.  Suffice it to say my lab partner did not get a 2.0 on the homework that went undone.

This is why men are earning less.  Because women have entered the workforce.  The revenue businesses use to pay their employees didn’t increase like the number of educated and experienced workers did.  So the amount of available revenue for pay and benefits was shared by more people.  Each getting less than a man did before the Sexual Revolution (when adjusted for inflation).  So instead of a single paycheck supporting a family these days it now takes two paychecks.  Because men are making less today since women have lowered the price of labor.  By increasing the supply of labor.  Not because they are paid less.  But because there are so many workers for so few jobs that businesses don’t have to pay as much as they once did to hire people.  Which is more to blame for pressure on wages than any pay gap.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Los Angeles Fire Department struggles to add Women to their Firefighter Rolls

Posted by PITHOCRATES - April 5th, 2014

Week in Review

Men and women are different.  Men are bigger and stronger.  Which is why women have easier physical requirements than the men at our service academies.  Because it’s very important to have more women in the military.  Apparently.  So they make it easier for the women.  But it’s just not our service academies that are desperate to have more women complete training successfully.  Even the Los Angeles Fire Department has been struggling with this (see Only female in LAFD’s class of firefighter recruits resigns by Ben Welsh and Robert J. Lopez posted 4/2/2014 on the Los Angeles Times).

The only woman selected for a controversial class of Los Angeles Fire Department recruits has resigned in the latest setback to a decades-long effort to increase the number of women in the department’s ranks…

“I didn’t feel like it was ultimately the job for me,” Juergens said in an interview Wednesday. “But I was very welcomed and offered support and encouragement along the way…”

… despite repeated efforts at reform, the percentage of female firefighters remains at just under 3% — the same as in 1995…

“We can debate what percentage of female recruits is possible, but 0% is absolutely unacceptable,” Robb said…

The city has asked Rand Corp. to help overhaul firefighter screening and hiring procedures, as well as examine the practices of the training academy.

“We want to make sure we hire the most qualified firefighter candidates possible and maximize their chances of success,” Robb said.

In other words, the city has asked Rand Corp. how they can make the training easier so more women stay in through completion.  I mean, what else could the problem be?  Men are able to complete training.  So the training is not impossible.  And they’re not making it harder for the women.  This recruit said that she ” was very welcomed and offered support and encouragement along the way.”  I sure hope they’re not doing this for the male recruits.  For if they don’t have what it takes people would want to know that during training.  Not at a fire where they may imperil their fellow firefighters or the people they’re supposed to save.  No, to make sure only the best make it through any training program it should be more like this (WARNING: This movie clip is rated R and is not suitable for the workplace.  It has offensive language and violent content.  Including a suicide.  Some may find it very disturbing).

Running into gunfire or into a burning building goes against every fiber in your body.  But if you complete training as stressful and horrible as this there’s nothing you feel you can’t do.  And no matter how horrible it is at least it isn’t as bad as your training.  This is why so few people complete good training.  Because training is hard.  It’s not supposed to be easy.  It’s supposed to prepare you for the worst.  Not nurture and encourage you.  For if you’re running into gunfire or into a burning building who do you want at your side?  Someone who was treated nice during training who was supported and encouraged?  Or someone who went to hell and back?  Someone so mentally and physically strong that they will be there for you no matter how bad things get?

Firefighter training is not as difficult as Marine training (incidentally, the drill instructor in the movie clip ad-libbed a lot of those lines.  R. Lee Ermey was a real drill instructor who served a tour of duty in Vietnam).  But making it easier for women to complete training is not going to make better firefighters.  It’s going to allow less physically and mentally strong people make it through training.  Which can’t make the good people of Los Angeles feel safer.  At least not those who may need a firefighter to rescue them one day.

And there’s nothing wrong with 0% of female recruits completing the training and joining the fire department.  It just means 100% of the recruits who did are highly qualified.  As well as male.  That’s all.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , ,

University encourages Women to be Sexually Active with Consent Kits

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 23rd, 2014

Week in Review

Hardcore feminists hate the institution of marriage.  Unless it’s same-sex marriage.  Then marriage is the greatest thing in the world.  But when it’s the union of a man and a woman that’s another story.  For all that the institution of marriage does is reduce the woman to a second-class citizen.  A piece of property.  Human property.  A cook in the kitchen.  A maid.  And a whore in the bedroom.  To serve their husbands disgusting sexual desires.  Some militant feminists have gone so far as to call sex in marriage rape.  Except for same-sex marriages, of course.  Then it’s a beautiful expression of love between two people.

To make these feminists happy all married women should deny their husbands any sexual pleasure.  They should be sexually abstinent.  They should be asexual.  So they are not a sexual object for their husbands’ depravity.  But on the other hand, if they’re single women then they should explore every part of their sexuality.  To enjoy every sexual pleasure there is no matter the social norm or taboo they break.  To objectify whatever part of their bodies to pleasure a man. Outside of marriage that’s called empowerment.  While inside a marriage it’s called rape.  Unless it’s a same-sex marriage, of course.  Feminists at a university are even helping young college women objectify, I mean, empower themselves (see Consent kits given to Vancouver students by Ada Slivinski posted 3/19/2014 on Vancouver 24 Hurs).

Bright pink boxes created by the Women’s Centre at Simon Fraser University are being distributed to spread the word about sexual consent and counter what is often termed “rape culture.”

Louise Mapleston, who represents the centre, said the initiative is about “making sure that when people have sex, they are feeling comfortable and they’re 100% excited.”

The package contains a condom, lubricant and a sexual Mad Lib, in which students can fill in the blanks of what form of sexual interaction they would like to engage in…

The Women’s Centre is run by a collective of volunteers and staff. The group self-identifies as pro-feminist, sex-positive, pro-choice, trans and intersex inclusive and anti-racist.

What form of sexual interaction they would like to engage in?  Would this work in marriage, too?  Would the sex inside of marriage not be rape if the wife filled out a sexual Mad Lib first?

Sex inside a marriage is a beautiful expression of love between two people.  Casual sex with a random person is not.  It is a physical experience only with no emotional connection.  It’s just a hookup.  Where guys can go from woman to woman depending on their tastes for the night.  The girl next door?  A cheerleader-type perhaps?  Black?  White?  Asian?  Hispanic.  So many options.  Thanks to all of those women empowering themselves.

And for the woman looking to get married and settle down to raise a family good luck.  With the hookup culture so prevalent guys can satisfy their lust and then hang out with their friends.  As the hookup culture has objectified women like nothing else.  It’s so bad that a lot of men see no need to get married.  For whenever they feel a sexual urge all they need to do is to hook up with some random woman.  Satisfy that urge.  And get back to something they enjoy.  Hanging with the guys.  As the hookup culture has made women good for only one thing to a lot of men.  And it’s not marriage.  Or even spending time with a woman in a nonsexual way.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Free Birth Control and Abortion on Demand creates a lot of Harm for Women

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 9th, 2014

Week in Review

According to the left an unborn fetus is nothing but a lump of cells that can be vacuumed out of a uterus anytime during a pregnancy.  It’s just no big deal.  An abortion.  Because ending a pregnancy is so trivial they can do them in abortion clinics that don’t meet the same certifications as hospitals or medical clinics.  So it would follow that if ending a pregnancy is no big deal that it must be no big deal for the woman getting an abortion, right?  Well, as it turns out it is a very big deal.  Such a big deal that a man is going to jail for tricking his girlfriend into getting pregnant.  A pregnancy she ended with a ‘no big deal’ abortion (see Man who sabotaged condoms guilty of sexual assault, top court rules by SEAN FINE posted 3/7/2014 on The Globe and Mail).

Men who sabotage condoms may turn an otherwise consensual act with a woman into sexual assault, and women who lie about using birth control have been left with some uncertainty about whether they, too, could face charges, under a Supreme Court ruling yesterday on deception before sex.

The court was unanimous that Craig Hutchinson of Nova Scotia was guilty of sexual assault for poking pin-sized holes in condoms because he hoped to keep his girlfriend from leaving him by getting her pregnant. His fraud carried such a risk of harm it nullified her consent, four of seven judges said. (She did become pregnant, but left him and had an abortion.) The risk to a woman who does not want to get pregnant is as serious in its way as the risk of HIV transmission from a partner who committed deception by failing to disclose their disease, the majority said.

“The concept of ‘harm’ does not encompass only bodily harm in the traditional sense of that term; it includes at least the sorts of profound changes in a woman’s body — changes that may be welcomed or changes that a woman may choose not to accept — resulting from pregnancy,” Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin and Justice Thomas Cromwell wrote, supported by Justice Marshall Rothstein and Justice Richard Wagner…

Peter Sankoff, a specialist in criminal law at the University of Alberta, said that psychological harm could in rare cases be a foundation for a future sexual assault claim by a man, say, whose condoms were sabotaged by a woman so she could have a baby. In a series of tweets, he said he knows many men who experienced an unwanted child, and as a result “spiralled downward” psychologically.

Others, including Michael Plaxton of the University of Saskatchewan law school, Sonia Lawrence of York University’s Osgoode Hall Law School, and Luke Craggs, the lawyer for Mr. Hutchinson, disagreed, saying the court would limit charges to cases where there was bodily harm.

“My preliminary view is that the decision seems to have been carefully written such that women who lie about birth control don’t have the same jeopardy,” Mr. Craggs said in an interview. Mr. Hutchinson was found guilty at his trial and sentenced to 18 months in jail, but had been free on bail awaiting the Supreme Court ruling.

So if a woman poked holes into a condom there would be no crime.  Because it’s her body.  Even though it will change the man’s life greatly if she tricked him into having a baby with her.  For he must now provide financially for that child.  So her deception is okay while his deception is not.  So harm from deception is based on how the woman feels.  If she wants a baby and tricks her boyfriend that’s okay.  If she doesn’t want a baby and gets an abortion without telling her husband that’s okay, too.  And whatever the man wants, does or says is wrong.  Okay.  Got it.

Impregnating a woman against her will is wrong.  No one is going to argue in defense of that.  But if that woman gets an abortion where is the harm?  Unless abortions are a big deal.  And are very traumatic to a woman.  Or can cause some long-term health problems (say increase the incidence of breast cancer from interrupting the hormonal changes going on in her body).  Or leave her with an emotional scar years later when she thinks about the child that she aborted.  If these are real harms then wouldn’t all abortions be harmful?  If so then there should be no abortions at all.  And if a woman doesn’t want a child then she shouldn’t have sex.  That would ensure no harm would ever befall a woman caused by an unwanted pregnancy.  And she could never commit a potential crime by lying about being on the pill.

People used to be like that.  Responsible.  But providing free birth control and abortion on demand sure has changed that.  And opened up women to all sorts of harm.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Tim Gunn is under the Gun for Thinking Models Modeling Women’s Clothing should have Curves

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 2nd, 2014

Week in Review

Tim Gunn of Project Runway fame is under the gun for making some very sensible statements.  Anyone looking at this from the standpoint of business (for fashion is a business to sell clothes) can see no ignorance in what businessman Tim Gunn said (see Tim Gunn says he feels “conflicted” about transgender models by Katie Mcdonough posted 2/24/2014 on Salon).

In an interview with the Huffington Post that ran Monday, “Project Runway” mentor Tim Gunn said he feels “conflicted” about gender nonconforming and transgender models in the industry. Gunn framed his comments as being in support of positive body images and diverse representation in modeling, but he actually just reinforced destructive (and false) body norms and revealed his own ignorance about trans people, both in fashion and outside the industry.

Discussing Andrej Pejic, who self-identifies as gender fluid and prefers to use feminine pronouns, Gunn said, “The fact that fashion designers would put basically adolescent-shaped boys or men in women’s clothes is head-scratching for me because, anatomically, women and men have different shapes. So, to be looking at women’s fashion on a tall, skinny guy with no hips, there’s no way you can project yourself into those clothes…

When asked about his thoughts on out transgender models in the industry, Gunn called it a “dicey issue.”

“On one hand, I don’t want to say that because you were a man and now you’re a woman, you can’t be in a women’s fashion show. But I feel it’s a dicey issue. The fact of the matter is, when you are transgender — if you go, say, male to female — you’re not having your pelvis broken and having it expanded surgically. You still have the anatomical bone structure of a man.”

This is a very important point.  A transgender model who is modeling women’s fashion is not going to have the same curves as the women who may buy these clothes.  Which is not going to help women see what these clothes may look like on them with their more curvy frames.  Or help the clothing line sell their clothes.  What sells fashion is showing curvy women how their glorious curves will be even more glorious in their clothes.  From a business standpoint it makes no sense to use transgender models to model women’s fashions.  For the vast majority of their market has curves (according to a 2011 Williams Institute study only 0.3% of adults identify themselves as transgender).  You can make a political statement by using a transgender model.  But it’s probably not going to help sell your line.  Which is ultimately the business of fashion.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , ,

A Gun-Less Britain makes Women Easy Prey for Domestic Abuse

Posted by PITHOCRATES - March 2nd, 2014

Week in Review

Liberal Democrats want to take away our guns.  In fact they’d like to repeal the Second Amendment.  For people having guns in the household leads to gun crime.  They like to point to Tucson, Aurora, Virginia Tech and Sandy Hook.  Crimes they say would not have happened if there were no guns.  Take away the guns and you take away these crimes.  And you make our households safer.  For without guns in the home there is no chance for domestic violence.  There will be no women being shot by angry men.  And no children dying if a parent goes off in a fit of anger and shoots them.  For if there are no guns there can be no violence.  The left believes this.  At least they keep telling us this.

For guns make people kill.  And without guns there will be nothing to make people kill.  Luckily for the British they have no guns in their households.  And live a life of peace and serenity the Americans can only dream about (see Domestic violence puts 10,000 at high risk of death or serious injury by Sandra Laville posted 2/26/2014 on the guardian).

More than 10,000 women and children are at high risk of being murdered or seriously injured by current or former partners, according to police assessments obtained by the Guardian…

But the figures obtained are likely to be an underestimate as domestic violence is heavily under-reported and police forces appear to gather and collate the information in several different ways, despite demands for a national protocol on assessing the risk to victims. The snapshot obtained by the Guardian reveals the acute nature of the threat of domestic violence for thousands of women and children…

Last year a coroner in Derbyshire found that police failures had contributed to the deaths of Rachael Slack and her two-year-old son, who were stabbed to death by her estranged partner. Slack had also been assessed as at high risk of homicide, but officers failed to inform her.

Or maybe not.

The obvious response to stop this domestic violence is to take away knives from British households.  For apparently taking away their guns wasn’t enough.  Then they should probably take away rope from the home.  For they may make someone strangle someone.  Blunt instruments, too.  For they can make people kill, too.  And poisons.  Got to remove them from the home.  Of course a man can beat and choke someone with his bare hands.  So you better get those out of the household, too.

Of course, we have crossed over into the ridiculous.  For it’s not these things that are killing women and children.  It’s the people using them.  And when one is not available they will look for another.  So probably the best way to protect a woman and her children is to give that woman a gun.  For if she has a gun it doesn’t matter how big her attacker is or how big the knife is he is threatening her with.  Because all the strength she needs is that required to pull the trigger.  And the big man with the big knife will fall.  Even if he’s 200 pounds heavier.  And a foot and a half taller.  For there is nothing that empowers a woman more than a gun.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , ,

« Previous Entries