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: , , , , , ,

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: , , , , , , ,

FT211: “Criticizing a woman’s policies doesn’t mean you’re a sexist or are afraid of strong women.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 28th, 2014

Fundamental Truth

You can call a Man Fatso but not a Woman because of the Double Standard when it comes to being Fat

Back when David Letterman was on NBC and the show was called Late Night with David Lettermen they had an old football player on one night.  I think he was a defensive linesman or a linebacker.  Who played football before there was money in playing football.  Back then it was just guys playing a game hard and then getting drunk afterwards.

On this episode of Late Night this football player was telling a story about one game.  It was late in the fourth quarter.  The score was already decided.  Nothing could happen to change who was going to win the game.  But the other team was still playing hard.  Trying to win.  So after one play he wandered over and entered the other team’s huddle and said something like, “Come on, guys.  Let’s just wrap this up and go get some beers already.”  At which point one of his teammates yelled over to him from the other huddle, “Hey fatso!  You’re in the wrong huddle.”

“Hey fatso!  You’re in the wrong huddle.”  It’s funny.  For that’s the way guys are.  They hurl insults at each other.  And if you were a heavy guy there was nothing wrong with calling you ‘fatso’.  It’s the way men joke around.  It doesn’t work with women, though.  If you have an overweight female coworker and you address her as fatso you’ll find yourself in sensitivity awareness training.  Or fired.  Because there is a double standard when it comes to being fat.  You can call a man fatso.  But not a woman.

Anyone espousing Keynesian Policies should be Criticized for they are doing Harm to the Economy

The political opposition and the main stream media treat President Obama with kid gloves.  They will not attack him.  Or even criticize his policies.  Because President Obama is the first black president.  And the political opposition and the mainstream media are terrified that someone will call them racist if they do.  They fear that so much they’d rather see the economy collapse from his Keynesian economic policies than risk being called a racist.

President Obama is a Keynesian.  Like most people in Washington making policy are.  Which is a shame.  As the historical record clearly shows these policies fail.  But our politicians still manipulate interest rates.  And spend money.  Believing in the fallacy of demand-side economics.  Which didn’t work to end the Great Depression.  It only made the stagflation of the Seventies worse.  It created a dot-com bubble and a dot-com recession.  And it created a housing bubble and a subprime mortgage crisis.  Giving us the Great Recession.  And further Keynesian policies on top of these past failed policies have given us the worst economic recovery since that following the Great Depression.

So anyone espousing Keynesian policies should be attacked and criticized.  For they are doing harm to the economy.  And the country.  Which is why the Democrats love President Obama.  (Well, at least before Obamacare threatened their reelection chances).  Because they can have him do all the things they want to do.  Manipulate interest rates.  Keep them near zero.  By printing money.  And then borrow even more money at those near-zero interest rates.  Allowing the government to go on an orgy of spending.  That’s why they love President Obama.  (Well, at least before Obamacare threatened their reelection chances).  For if anyone criticizes this reckless and irresponsible policy they can just label them a racist.  And they immediately shut up.  Just knowing this keeps people from speaking up in the first place.

It’s easier to Lie when you can Scare away Criticism with Charges of Racism or Sexism

But the political opposition and the mainstream media have no problem calling Governor Christie a fat man.  Christie is not black.  A woman.  Or a Democrat.  So he’s fair game.  They can make the most vile fat slurs with him and it’s okay.  Fatso.  Fat-ass.  Whatever.  They don’t call it hateful.  They just laugh.  And pile on.  They’ll even go so far as to call him a fat elephant on the cover of Time Magazine.  Putting a very large profile of him that takes up most of the cover and call him the elephant in the room (a GOP reference).  Because it’s okay to call him fat-ass and every other possible fat slur you can think of.  But do you know who you can’t call fat?  Hillary Clinton.

Should Hillary Clinton run for president again the political opposition and the mainstream media will treat her with kid gloves.  They won’t call her fatso.  Or fat-ass.  Because that wouldn’t be nice.  It’s okay to use those invectives against Governor Christie.  (Just take the Christie fat slurs and replace his name with hers and see the kind of reactions you get).  But if you dare use that tone with Hillary Clinton they will label you a sexist.  Accuse you of being afraid of strong women (but not so strong as to be able to put up with fat jokes like Governor Christie).  Proof that there is a Republican war on women.  And should she win the presidency there will be little criticism of her policies.  Because no one wants to be labeled a sexist.  Or be accused of being afraid of strong women.  Especially with the first female president.  So she will get a pass on most everything she does.  Like President Obama.  Despite being as deserving of attacks and criticism.  For she is a Keynesian, too.

With only 23% of the nation identifying as liberal the left has trouble passing their liberal policies.  So they lie, of course.  A lot.  And it’s easier to lie when you can scare away criticism with charges of racism.  Or sexism.  Which is why they like President Obama so much.  (Well, at least before Obamacare threatened their reelection chances).  He was the first black president.  Which made it harder for some to criticize him.  Which helped make the lying easier.  So they will most likely try to follow this strategy.  Perhaps with Hillary Clinton.  Who may be the first female president.  Following that with other ‘firsts’.  Until the opposition and the mainstream media learn that criticizing a woman’s policies doesn’t make you a sexist.  Or afraid of strong women.  It just means you’re criticizing a person with bad policies who happens to be a woman.  Just as they will be able to criticize a black president one day.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

FT209: “The first openly gay NFL player will be as distracting as Tim Tebow.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - February 14th, 2014

Fundamental Truth

The Heart we see on Valentine’s Day is actually a Woman’s Butt as she Bends Over

We have locker rooms for women.  And locker rooms for men.  Because we want an environment where women feel comfortable and safe to undress in.  To be stripped to their underwear in.  Where they can walk around nude.  And shower naked.  Things most people—men included—don’t feel comfortable doing in front of other people.  Especially people of the opposite sex.

We’ve seen a man talking to a pretty and buxom lady in many a television show and movie.  With the man’s eyes meandering down to the woman’s ample breasts.  In fact, we’ve seen some men in extreme discomfort as they try NOT to look.  Especially when a woman’s boobs are straining the buttons on her blouse.  Or she’s showing a lot of cleavage.  Those who are caught looking may hear an angry “Hey, buddy, my eyes are up here!”

But it’s just not breasts that attract a man’s gaze.  Men like to watch women from behind, too.  Watching their pert behinds as they sashay by.  A woman can sometimes feel those eyes on her derriere.  And may respond with an exasperated, “Stop looking at my ass!”  But men have long enjoyed looking at a woman’s posterior.  So much so that the heart we see on Valentine’s Day—the symbol of love—is actually a woman’s butt as she bends over.

Seeing a Penis in the Women’s Locker Room will no doubt make some Women Uncomfortable

For these reasons women get their own locker rooms and restrooms.  So they don’t have to feel those unwelcomed gazes in their most personal moments.  Or feel embarrassed about their bodies should they not look like Playboy playmates.  And so a woman doesn’t have to worry about sexual assault in the locker room if she’s the only woman in there undressing in front of a group of men.

Even the Army understands these concerns women have while undressed.  So much so that they don’t even make them undress in front of other women.  The men may have to stand in a line and strip down to their underwear, bend over and grab their ankles for a very public rectal exam (see Women to Serve in Combat despite having Lower Physical Standards and Private Rectal Exams in Training posted 2/9/2014 on PITHOCRATES).  But not the women.  No, the women will enjoy bending over only in front of the doctor.  While in a private room.

So we give women an environment where they can feel safe.  And not where people can look at them in all of their nakedness with who knows what on their minds.  Especially in high schools.  And colleges.  Because we all know what college boys have on their minds.  So we keep anyone with a penis out of the women’s locker room.  Unless that person with a penis is transgendered (see California law lets transgender students pick bathrooms, teams to join by Holly Yan posted 8/13/2013 on CNN).  Which no doubt will make some women uncomfortable.  Taking off their clothes and standing naked next to someone who undresses and reveals a penis.  A woman’s normal reaction would be to quickly cover up her nakedness.  And call for help.  Is she supposed to feel comfortable and relaxed to be naked next to someone who claims to be a woman even though that someone has a penis?  At the least she may be thinking “is this person for real?  Or is this just a clever way to see me naked?”

The first Openly Gay Player in the NFL will go out of his way not to “Gay it Up”

Athletes are some of the most physically fit people in the world.  And some of the most attractive.  Men and women.  Which is why there’s a lot of stuff happening in those Olympic villages between or after the events.  The great Italian, Alberto Tomba, not only had great skills on the slopes.  But he had great skills off the slopes.  As he was quite the ladies’ man.  And today’s technology just makes it easier to hook up in the Olympic village (see Tinder Hook-Ups Off the Hook Among Sochi Athletes posted 2/12/2014 on ABC News).

The social networking tool may be new since the last Winter Olympics, but with 3,000 athletes in the prime of their lives from around the world packed into Sochi, they’re bound to seek an outlet through electronic means or otherwise.

“It’s like making the ingredients of a huge stew – a stew of sexual ingredients,” said Dr. Judy Kuriansky, a sex therapist and clinical psychologist at Columbia University’s Teachers College in New York City. “There is stress, which causes tension, and anxiety and energy, and a massive outpouring of chemicals in the body – adrenaline and endorphins. It’s a powerful concoction of chemicals.”

“Everyone knows the runner’s high,” she said. “Olympian athletes certainly have it – it’s orgasmic.”

Kuriansky said all the beautiful and fit athletes tend not to “think about their conscience.”

“Winners or losers, on top of the world or devastated, it tends to make you grab the moment – carpe diem,” she said. “This is your moment.”

Professional athletes are in the prime of their sexual lives, too.  And it’s just not the quarterback of the football team getting the pretty ladies.  For when you’re this fit and at the top of your game the ladies come to you.  Which is probably why the NFL cheerleaders don’t share a locker room with the NFL players.  Manly men and beautiful women together undressed in the prime of their sexual lives?  In a stew of sexual ingredients?  That massive outpouring of adrenaline and endorphins?  No, putting penises and vaginas together in that boiling stew may lead to something orgasmic.  Which may distract from the game.

We now have the first openly gay player about to enter the NFL draft.  And despite being a professional athlete in the prime of his sexual life he will not even notice the naked men in the locker room he shares.  Just as a college boy could share the women’s locker room and not notice the undressed women.  Just as an NFL player could share the cheerleader locker room and not notice their glorious naked bodies.  And no one will ever have to say, “Hey, my eyes are up here.”  Or “stop looking at my ass.”

A gay man may find an NFL locker room heaven to be in (based on the number of search results for ‘gay porn scenes in a locker room’).  Just as a straight man would find it heaven to be invited into an NFL cheerleader locker room (based on all those R-rated movies where guys are spying on or sneaking into the girls’ locker room).  But not a gay NFL player.  No.  He will be a professional.  At all times.  Because he will be the first openly gay player in the NFL.  He will go out of his way not to ‘gay it up’ to borrow a line from Stephen Colbert.  He may make some players uncomfortable.  But after a few games that will go away.  No one will feel threatened in the locker room.  But he will still be a great distraction.  For Tim Tebow won the Heisman Trophy yet he plays for no NFL team.  Not even as a backup quarterback.  Why?  Well, part of the reason is they say his style of play does not translate well to the NFL.  But there is another reason.  Because of the distraction he is.  He was getting a lot of press for his Christian beliefs.  And his ‘Tebowing’ after a touchdown.  He was just too Christian.  And too big of a distraction from the game (he even had groupies).  Just as having a gay player in an NFL locker room will be.  For the team that picks him will no doubt spend a lot of their time talking about having the first openly gay player in the NFL.  And should he not do well in the NFL imagine that head coach explaining to the press why he cut the first gay NFL player from his team.  This will be the great distraction.  The media wanting to know if he’s a distraction.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

President Obama’s 2014 State of the Union Address

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 30th, 2014

Politics 101

Democrats offered Enthusiastic Applause for Unsound Policy Proposals that have no Basis in Reality

President Obama’s 2014 State of the Union address was a little longer than an hour.  But if you didn’t look at a clock it felt a lot longer.  For it was the same tripe you hear all the time from this administration.  And the political left.  It was full of misleading statements.  Inaccurate facts and figures.  And some lies.  The usual stuff you expect from the liberal left.  But what was really disturbing was the enthusiastic applause for some really unsound policy proposals that have no basis in reality.  Showing either how clueless these enthusiastic Democrats are about economics, business, national security, etc.  Or how amoral they are in their quest for power.  As they judge and implement policy not by how it will improve the lives of Americans.  But how it will improve their lives in government.

Some Big Reasons why Businesses export Jobs are Taxes, Regulations and Labor Costs

If there was ever an example of what people not to have in power this state of the union theater was it.  Following are excerpts from President Obama’s speech (see FULL TRANSCRIPT: Obama’s 2014 State of the Union address posted 1/28/2014 on The Washington Post).  Comments and analysis follow each excerpt.

And here are the results of your efforts: the lowest unemployment rate in over five years; a rebounding housing market — (applause) — a manufacturing sector that’s adding jobs for the first time since the 1990s — (applause) — more oil produced — more oil produced at home than we buy from the rest of the world, the first time that’s happened in nearly twenty years — (applause) — our deficits cut by more than half; and for the first time — (applause) — for the first time in over a decade, business leaders around the world have declared that China is no longer the world’s number one place to invest; America is.

The total number of people who left the civilian labor force since President Obama took office is 11,301,000 (see The BLS Employment Situation Summary for December 2013 posted 1/13/2014 on PITHOCRATES).  Which means the unemployment rate is meaningless.  The only reason why it’s falling is that the BLS doesn’t count unemployed people who gave up looking for jobs that just aren’t there.  Oil production on private land may be up.  While overall oil consumption is down because of the Great Recession that just won’t end.  Which is helping to keep gas prices down.  Unemployed people just don’t have the money to buy gas.  So they don’t.  Greatly reducing the demand for gas.  Thus reducing gas prices and oil imports.  George W. Bush’s last deficit was $498.37 billion.  President Obama’s first deficit was $1,539.22 billion.  And it was over $1 trillion in 2010, 2011 and 2012.  It fell to $680 billion in 2013 thanks to the sequester.  But the deficit is larger now than when President Obama assumed office.  The only reduction in the deficit is a reduction in the amount he increased it.

Now, as president, I’m committed to making Washington work better, and rebuilding the trust of the people who sent us here.

Really?  You’re committed to rebuilding the trust of the people?  Mr. “If you like your health insurance you can keep your health insurance.  Period.”  Otherwise known as the lie of the year.  You’re going to rebuild the trust of the people?  Good luck with that.  What with your pants on fire and all.

Today, after four years of economic growth, corporate profits and stock prices have rarely been higher, and those at the top have never done better. But average wages have barely budged. Inequality has deepened. Upward mobility has stalled. The cold, hard fact is that even in the midst of recovery, too many Americans are working more than ever just to get by; let alone to get ahead. And too many still aren’t working at all.

Well, finally something Republicans can agree with the president about.  Yes, his economic policies have benefitted Wall Street.  While hurting Main Street.  Finally some bipartisan agreement.

So let’s make that decision easier for more companies. Both Democrats and Republicans have argued that our tax code is riddled with wasteful, complicated loopholes that punish businesses investing here, and reward companies that keep profits abroad. Let’s flip that equation. Let’s work together to close those loopholes, end those incentives to ship jobs overseas, and lower tax rates for businesses that create jobs right here at home. (Cheers, applause.)

There are only a few reasons why businesses export jobs.  And the big three are taxes, regulations and labor costs.  The Obama administration wants to raise taxes.  They’ve increased regulatory costs.  And they support costly union labor.  So everything they stand for encourages businesses to export jobs.

But — but I’ll act on my own to slash bureaucracy and streamline the permitting process for key projects, so we can get more construction workers on the job as fast as possible. (Applause.)

So how’s that approval for the Keystone XL pipeline coming along?  That thing you’ve been studying since 2010?  Which by the laws of arithmetic is approximately 4 years ago.  Is this slashing bureaucracy and streamlining the permitting process?  At this rate it would probably be quicker to elect a Republican president in 2016.  You know, someone who, when it comes to economic activity, walks it while the Democrats only talk it.

We also have the chance, right now, to beat other countries in the race for the next wave of high-tech manufacturing jobs. And my administration’s launched two hubs for high-tech manufacturing in Raleigh, North Carolina, and Youngstown, Ohio, where we’ve connected businesses to research universities that can help America lead the world in advanced technologies.

Universities are in the grant business.  They want as many grants as they can get to help bring money into the university.  And to do so they will study anything the government wants them to.  No matter how wasteful it is.  While some of the biggest high-tech companies started in garages.  Apple, Google, Hewlett Packard and Microsoft.  To name a few.  Yes, there is a lot of university-driven research.  But the big innovation is more entrepreneurial.  Created by people thinking up new stuff no one thought of yet.  Which is the last thing you want government involved in.  That same government that can’t build a website using 1990s technology.

Let’s do more to help the entrepreneurs and small business owners who create most new jobs in America. Over the past five years, my administration has made more loans to small business owners than any other. And when 98 percent of our exporters are small businesses, new trade partnerships with Europe and the Asia-Pacific will help them create even more jobs. We need to work together on tools like bipartisan trade promotion authority to protect our workers, protect our environment and open new markets to new goods stamped “Made in the USA.” (Applause.)

You want to help entrepreneurs and small business?  Get rid of Obamacare.  And slash tax rates.  This will provide incentive.  And allow them to reinvest more of their earnings to grow their business.  Allowing them to create those jobs.

Now, one of the biggest factors in bringing more jobs back is our commitment to American energy. The “all the above” energy strategy I announced a few years ago is working, and today America is closer to energy independence than we have been in decades. (Applause.)

‘All of the above’ as long as it isn’t coal, oil or nuclear.  But if it’s solar power and wind power they are committed to giving more tax dollars to their friends and bundlers in the green energy industry.

Meanwhile, my administration will keep working with the industry to sustain production and jobs growth while strengthening protection of our air, our water, our communities. And while we’re at it, I’ll use my authority to protect more of our pristine federal lands for future generations. (Applause.)

You can’t sustain production and jobs growth by strengthening protection of our air, water and pristine federal lands.  That’s just more regulatory costs.  And raising energy costs by not allowing any oil or natural gas production on those pristine federal lands.  Raising energy costs by restricting supply.  Which raises business costs.  In addition to those new regulatory costs.

Every four minutes another American home or business goes solar, every panel pounded into place by a worker whose job can’t be outsourced. Let’s continue that progress with a smarter tax policy that stops giving $4 billion a year to fossil fuel industries that don’t need it so we can invest more in fuels of the future that do. (Cheers, applause.)

That says it all.  Fossil fuels don’t need subsidies because their costs are affordable.  While solar (and wind power) are so costly that they are unaffordable.  Unless government heavily subsidizes them.

But the debate is settled. Climate change is a fact. (Applause.) And when our children’s children look us in the eye and ask if we did all we could to leave them a safer, more stable world, with new sources of energy, I want us to be able to say yes, we did. (Cheers, applause.)

There is no such thing as settled science.  Only science that has yet to be disproved.  Besides, once upon a time glaciers stretched down from the poles to near the equator.  And then receded back to where they are now.  All without any manmade carbon in the atmosphere to warm the planet.  As we were still simple hunter and gatherers then.  So if the glaciers moved more before there was manmade global warming they’ll move again regardless of what man is doing to warm the planet.

Finally, if we’re serious about economic growth, it is time to heed the call of business leaders, labor leaders, faith leaders, law enforcement — and fix our broken immigration system. (Cheers, applause.) Republicans and Democrats in the Senate have acted, and I know that members of both parties in the House want to do the same. Independent economists say immigration reform will grow our economy and shrink our deficits by almost $1 trillion in the next two decades. And for good reason: When people come here to fulfill their dreams — to study, invent, contribute to our culture — they make our country a more attractive place for businesses to locate and create jobs for everybody. So let’s get immigration reform done this year. (Cheers, applause.) Let’s get it done. It’s time.

Funny how that argument doesn’t apply to birth control and abortion.  The reason we need to “fix our broken immigration system.”  For if we were having babies at the rate when government created the welfare state we could pay for that welfare state today.  But thanks to the Sixties, birth control, abortion and feminism women stopped having babies.  Which is fine if a woman doesn’t want to.  But the progressives designed the welfare state based on them being baby machines.  Creating a greater number of taxpayers with each generation.  So more people pay into the welfare state than collect from it.  The way it must be for a Ponzi scheme to work.

That’s why I’ve been asking CEOs to give more long-term unemployed workers a fair shot at new jobs, a new chance to support their families. And in fact, this week many will come to the White House to make that commitment real.

When you raise the cost of labor (union labor, Obamacare, etc.) businesses tend to look at automating production instead of hiring that costly labor.  They may not be able to do anything about the higher regulatory costs but they can do something about higher labor costs.  Use more machines than people.  If you want CEOs to create new jobs stop making labor so costly.  And you can start with getting rid of Obamacare.

Of course, it’s not enough to train today’s workforce. We also have to prepare tomorrow’s workforce, by guaranteeing every child access to a world-class education. (Applause.)…

Five years ago we set out to change the odds for all our kids. We worked with lenders to reform student loans, and today more young people are earning college degrees than ever before. Race to the Top, with the help of governors from both parties, has helped states raise expectations and performance. Teachers and principals in schools from Tennessee to Washington, D.C., are making big strides in preparing students with the skills for the new economy — problem solving, critical thinking, science, technology, engineering, math.

Yes, more kids are going to college than ever before.  But they’re going there to have fun.  And to facilitate their fun many are getting easy, worthless degrees in the social sciences and humanities.  Costly degrees that universities sold them promising them future riches.  Enriching the university.  While impoverishing their graduates.  For a high-tech company has no use for these degrees.  Which is why a lot of these people end up in jobs they didn’t need that costly degree to do.  And our high-tech companies are using the visa program to get foreigners who have the skills they want.  Problem solving, critical thinking, science, technology, engineering and math.

It requires everything from more challenging curriculums and more demanding parents to better support for teachers and new ways to measure how well our kids think, not how well they can fill in a bubble on a test. But it is worth it — and it is working.

If you want kids to do better we need to champion marriage and family more.  And they should embrace religion a little more.  Instead of encouraging our young women to use birth control and abortion to avoid marriage and family.  And pulling every last vestige of religion from our lives.  Kids growing up in a household with a mother and a father who go to church do far better on average than kids growing up in a single-parent household and don’t go to church (see Strong families steeped in Conservative Values and Traditions do Well in America posted 1/11/2014 on PITHOCRATES).

Research shows that one of the best investments we can make in a child’s life is high-quality early education. (Applause.) Last year, I asked this Congress to help states make high-quality pre-K available to every 4-year-old. And as a parent as well as a president, I repeat that request tonight.

Actually, research doesn’t show that.  Yet they keep saying that.  For it’s like that line in the musical Evita, “Get them while they’re young, Evita.  Get them while they’re young.”  The sooner they can take them away from their parents the sooner they can start turning them into Democrat voters.  Such as teaching them to blame their parents for the manmade global warming that is killing the polar bears as they have no ice to rest on while eating their baby seals.

You know, today, women make up about half our workforce, but they still make 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. That is wrong, and in 2014, it’s an embarrassment.

Women deserve equal pay for equal work. (Cheers, applause.)

Actually, it’s closer to 91 cents (see The White House’s use of data on the gender wage gap by Glenn Kessler posted 6/5/2012 on The Washington Post).  And the small difference is not due to discrimination but personal choice.  When you look at aggregate wages women will make less than men.  Because more women are teachers (with 3 month off without pay) than men are.  Some women work fewer hours at work to spend more time with their children. While men tend to work more overtime.  Men also work the more dangerous and higher paying jobs.  And are more likely to belong to a union.  When you compare childless, single men and women with a college degree some women are actually earning more than men.  Figures don’t lie but liars figure.  And for the contortions the Obama administration did here The Washington Post’s The Fact Checker gave the president one Pinocchio.

Now, women hold a majority of lower-wage jobs, but they’re not the only ones stifled by stagnant wages. Americans understand that some people will earn more money than others, and we don’t resent those who, by virtue of their efforts, achieve incredible success. That’s what America’s all about. But Americans overwhelmingly agree that no one who works full-time should ever have to raise a family in poverty. (Applause.)

In the year since I asked this Congress to raise the minimum wage, five states have passed laws to raise theirs.

You’re not going to have a lot of upward mobility when you pay people more to remain in the jobs they hate.  All the talk about making college more affordable and bringing employers and community colleges together to help give people the skills they need to fill the jobs employers have is all for nothing if they just pay people more for doing an entry-level job.

Let’s do more to help Americans save for retirement. Today most workers don’t have a pension. A Social Security check often isn’t enough on its own. And while the stock market has doubled over the last five years, that doesn’t help folks who don’t have 401(k)s. That’s why tomorrow I will direct the Treasury to create a new way for working Americans to start their own retirement savings: MyRA. It’s a — it’s a new savings bond that encourages folks to build a nest egg.

Once upon a time people opened a savings account at their local bank and they saved to buy a house.  And they saved for their retirement.  That’s how people saved when they didn’t have a pension or a 401(k).  They can’t do that today because of the Federal Reserve destroying the banking industry by keeping interest rates at zero.  If the Fed stopped printing money and let investment capital come from our savings like they did before the Keynesians gave us the Federal Reserve people would be saving like we once did.  And we’d stop having Great Depressions, stagflation and Great Recessions.  Created by their prolonging the growth side of the business cycle.  Which raises prices higher than they normally would go.  Making the contraction side of the business cycle that much more painful.  As those prices have a much longer way to fall than they normally would.  Thanks to the Fed’s meddling with interest rates.

MyRA guarantees a decent return with no risk of losing what you put in. And if this Congress wants to help, work with me to fix an upside-down tax code that gives big tax breaks to help the wealthy save, but does little or nothing for middle-class Americans, offer every American access to an automatic IRA on the job, so they can save at work just like everybody in this chamber can.

You know why they want these MyRAs?  Because they can’t stand people saving money.  They love Social Security.  Because they can borrow from the Social Security Trust Fund.  Which is what they will do with these MyRAs.  They will take this money and spend it.  Filling the MyRA Trust Fund with a bunch of IOUs.  Just like they do with the Social Security Trust Fund.  And then provide a retirement benefit like Social Security.  That is too small to live on.  Whereas if we saved the money ourselves our retirement nest-egg will be much larger.  And it will provide for our retirement.  Unlike Social Security.

And since the most important investment many families make is their home, send me legislation that protects taxpayers from footing the bill for a housing crisis ever again, and keeps the dream of homeownership alive for future generations. (Applause.)

It was Bill Clinton that set the stage for the subprime mortgage crisis with his Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending (see Bill Clinton created the subprime mortgage crisis with his Policy Statement on Discrimination in Lending posted 11/6/2011 on PITHOCRATES).  Using the heavy hand of government to get lenders to qualify the unqualified.  Then the Fed’s artificially low interest rates were the bait for the trap.  Enticing people to borrow huge sums of money because those interest rates were just too good to pass up.  Even if they weren’t planning to buy a house to begin with. The subprime mortgage crisis and the resulting Great Recession were government made.  If we want to prevent the taxpayers from footing the bill for another housing crisis we need to get the Keynesians out of government.

Already, because of the Affordable Care Act, more than 3 million Americans under age 26 have gained coverage under their parents’ plans. (Applause.)

More than 9 million Americans have signed up for private health insurance or Medicaid coverage — 9 million. (Applause.)

The Washington Post gave this lie three Pinocchios (see Warning: Ignore claims that 3.9 million people signed up for Medicaid because of Obamacare by Glenn Kessler posted 1/16/2014 on The Washington Post).  For they’re counting some 3.9 million who would have signed up anyway for Medicaid regardless of the Affordable Care Act.  Also, the government was counting people who put a health care plan into their shopping cart as if they signed up for it.  Which many couldn’t.  As they haven’t programmed the back end of the health care website yet to actually accept payment or to pass that information on to the insurers.

And here’s another number: zero. Because of this law, no American, none, zero, can ever again be dropped or denied coverage for a pre-existing condition like asthma or back pain or cancer. (Cheers, applause.) No woman can ever be charged more just because she’s a woman. (Cheers, applause.) And we did all this while adding years to Medicare’s finances, keeping Medicare premiums flat and lowering prescription costs for millions of seniors.

That’s right.  Women with reproductive systems that men don’t have won’t pay more for their health insurance than men pay for theirs.  How can they do that?  Simple.  They just are charging men more.  To cover the cost of a reproductive system they don’t have.

Citizenship means standing up for the lives that gun violence steals from us each day. I have seen the courage of parents, students, pastors, and police officers all over this country who say “we are not afraid,” and I intend to keep trying, with or without Congress, to help stop more tragedies from visiting innocent Americans in our movie theaters and our shopping malls, or schools like Sandy Hook. (Applause.)

If you take away guns from law-abiding gun owners that won’t keep dangerous people with mental health issues that want to harm people out of our movie theaters, our shopping malls or schools like Sandy Hook.  For there are other ways to harm people.  Just look at the Boston Marathon bombers.  The people he’s talking about not only had mental health issues but they were also smart.  Many were even college students.  Who probably could think of other ways to hurt people.  And you just can’t take away everything they might use to harm people.  But you can place these people somewhere where they can’t harm anyone.

You see, in a world of complex threats, our security, our leadership depends on all elements of our power — including strong and principled diplomacy. American diplomacy has rallied more than 50 countries to prevent nuclear materials from falling into the wrong hands, and allowed us to reduce our own reliance on Cold War stockpiles.

Since President Obama assumed office he did nothing to support the Green Revolution in Iran.  Which kept the hard-line Islamists in power there.  He gave Egypt to the Muslim Brotherhood by telling Hosni Mubarak that he had to go.  Removing the stable anchor of the Middle East.  And moved Egypt closer to Iran.  (The Egyptian people eventually rose up to overthrow the oppressive Muslim Brotherhood).  He went to war in Libya and helped to overthrow Colonel Muammar Qaddafi.  Who at the time was a quasi ally in the War on Terror.  After the Iraq invasion frightened him into believing he may be next.  President Obama was thanked for his Libyan war by al Qaeda with 4 dead Americans in Benghazi on the anniversary of 9/11.  He waited too long to act in the Syrian civil war.  Which only brought al Qaeda into the conflict.  He failed to attain a status of forces agreement in Iraq.  So he pulled all U.S. forces out of Iraq which has only invited al Qaeda in.  And it looks like this will be repeated in Afghanistan.  He blamed George W. Bush’s wars as recruitment tools for al Qaeda.  While his extensive drone use is doing the same thing.  Especially in Yemen.  The hotbed of al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula.  All that his diplomacy and leadership has done was to make the world a more dangerous place.

American diplomacy, backed by the threat of force, is why Syria’s chemical weapons are being eliminated. (Applause.) And we will continue to work with the international community to usher in the future the Syrian people deserve — a future free of dictatorship, terror and fear.

His diplomacy with Bashar al-Assad in Syria only gave his oppressive regime legitimacy in the civil war he was raging against his people.  Making it easier for Assad to kill Syrians with conventional arms while he gives up a token amount of his chemical weapons.  While also making Russia who brokered the deal the dominate player in the region.

And it is American diplomacy, backed by pressure, that has halted the progress of Iran’s nuclear program — and rolled back parts of that program — for the very first time in a decade. As we gather here tonight, Iran has begun to eliminate its stockpile of higher levels of enriched uranium.

It’s not installing advanced centrifuges. Unprecedented inspections help the world verify every day that Iran is not building a bomb. And with our allies and partners, we’re engaged in negotiations to see if we can peacefully achieve a goal we all share: preventing Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. (Applause.)

All Iran is doing is pausing their program.  And chemically altering some of their enriched uranium to meet the requirements of this diplomatic deal.  But this chemical process is reversible.  And they will reverse it once they get what they want.  This deal makes the world no safer.  If anything it makes it more dangerous.  For it does not diminish the Iranian nuclear program in the least.  But gives them more time to work on it as they prop up their regime with much needed supplies thanks to a relaxation of the sanctions against them.

These negotiations will be difficult; they may not succeed. We are clear-eyed about Iran’s support for terrorist organizations like Hezbollah, which threaten our allies; and we’re clear about the mistrust between our nations, mistrust that cannot be wished away. But these negotiations don’t rely on trust; any long-term deal we agree to must be based on verifiable action that convinces us and the international community that Iran is not building a nuclear bomb. If John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan could negotiate with the Soviet Union, then surely a strong and confident America can negotiate with less powerful adversaries today. (Applause.)

The sanctions that we put in place helped make this opportunity possible. But let me be clear: if this Congress sends me a new sanctions bill now that threatens to derail these talks, I will veto it. (Applause.) For the sake of our national security, we must give diplomacy a chance to succeed.

The Soviet Union never attacked U.S. soil.  And there was a reason they didn’t.  They were rational.  And knew they would lose a great deal in a war with America.  Especially a nuclear one.  Which is why they never used their nuclear weapons.  But Iran giving a nuclear weapon to a shadowy group that is not a state?  With little to lose in using a nuclear weapon?  If it’s not a nuclear missile there will be no way in knowing where the nuclear bomb came from.  We can have our suspicions that Iran made it and gave it to someone.  But do we nuke Iran over that?  What if there are more nukes in the hands of al Qaeda, Hezbollah, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, etc.?  You could nuke Iran back to the Stone Age but it won’t stop those others being used.  The president insists this will not happen as Iran signed an agreement.  The only problem with that is the Iranians are liars.  And they call the United States the Great Satan.   These two facts suggest that replacing those sanctions with a promise not to build nuclear bombs was probably not a wise trade.

But for more than two hundred years, we have put those things aside and placed our collective shoulder to the wheel of progress: to create and build and expand the possibilities of individual achievement; to free other nations from tyranny and fear; to promote justice and fairness and equality under the law, so that the words set to paper by our founders are made real for every citizen.

Use our collective shoulder to expand individual achievement?  The president believes in the former more than the latter.  He didn’t help the Iranians get free from tyranny when he had the chance.  And he turned the Egyptian people over to tyranny.  The Muslim Brotherhood.  Who were oppressing women and Christians.  Fairness and equality under the law?  Ask those Tea Party groups who were targeted by the IRS about fairness and equality under the law.  The Constitution?  That document of negative rights?  The left hates it.  And insists it’s a living document that can evolve over time to suit the needs of an expanding government.  So they can do exactly what the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution to prevent from happening.

The Left endorses Unsound Policy Proposals with no Basis in Reality to improve their Chances of Winning Elections

The country is more conservative than liberal (see Liberal Self-Identification Edges Up to New High in 2013 by Jeffrey M. Jones posted 1/10/2014 on Gallup).  Which is why liberals want state-funded pre-K to start indoctrinating our children as soon as possible.  To get them away from their parents so they can begin the process of turning them into Democrat voters.  It’s why kids are getting worthless social science and humanities degrees.  To further indoctrinate them.  Because their views are minority views.  So they need to play loose with the facts.  And lie.  Which is easier to do with indoctrinated kids than educated adults.  You’ll even hear Democrats talk about lowering the voting age.  To get a few more years of voting out of these kids before they grow old and wise.  And begin voting conservative.  So they do what they can to dumb down education.  Lie.  Cheat.  And buy as many votes as they can by giving away free stuff.  And the thing they really want to give away is citizenship for illegal aliens.  Who they are sure will be forever grateful.  And show it by voting Democrat.

This explains the enthusiastic applause for unsound policy proposals that have no basis in reality.  For the left is not interested in improving the lives of Americans.  They just want to improve their chances of winning elections.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

The Marines have Lower Physical Requirements for Women they’re Integrating into Combat

Posted by PITHOCRATES - January 5th, 2014

Week in Review

Women serving in the military in Iraq were issued rape whistles.  To protect themselves from their fellow soldiers.  They needed the whistle to call for help.  As they could not depend on being strong enough to fight off a rapist.  Or a gang of rapists.  Which illustrates a point about men and women.  They’re different.  Men are bigger and stronger than women.  So women were given rape whistles to call for help when a bigger and stronger man tried to rape her.

Of course, that whistle won’t do much good in combat.  Which is where the left wants to put women in the military.  In roles that have been until now reserved solely for physically strong men.  Who can do 3 pullups.  Or more (see Marines delay female fitness plan after half fail by AP posted 1/2/2014 on USA Today).

Starting with the new year, all female Marines were supposed to be able to do at least three pullups on their annual physical fitness test and eight for a perfect score. The requirement was tested in 2013 on female recruits at Marine Corps Recruit Depot, Parris Island, S.C., but only 45 percent of women met the minimum, Krebs said.

The Marines had hoped to institute the pullups on the belief that pullups require the muscular strength necessary to perform common military tasks such as scaling a wall, climbing up a rope or lifting and carrying heavy munitions.

Officials felt there wasn’t a medical risk to putting the new standard into effect as planned across the service, but that the risk of losing recruits and hurting retention of women already in the service was unacceptably high, she said.

Because the change is being put off, women will be able to choose which test of upper-body strength they will be graded on in their annual physical fitness test. Their choices:

• Pullups, with three the minimum. Three is also the minimum for male Marines, but they need 20 for a perfect rating.

• A flexed-arm hang. The minimum is for 15 seconds; women get a perfect score if they last for 70 seconds. Men don’t do the hang in their test…

Military brass has said repeatedly that physical standards won’t be lowered to accommodate female applicants. Success for women in training for the upcoming openings has come in fits and starts.

But you are.  If you have different requirements for men and women you have lowered the standards for women.  Which will not only put their fellow Marines at risk.  But it will put these women at a disadvantage with the enemy.  Because blowing your rape whistle won’t stop the enemy from beating you to death.

There are many roles women can serve in the armed forces.  Even in combat zones.  From pilots to sappers.  And they have.  So close to the combat that they’ve been getting killed and maimed serving their country just like men.  But putting them into infantry units will get a lot of them killed.  Imagine a wounded Marine outside a foxhole exposed to enemy fire.  Who can drag that Marine safely into the foxhole quicker?  The Marine who can’t do 3 pullups?  Or the Marine that can do 20 pullups?  If a man is in that foxhole he may be able to reach out and grab that wounded Marine with one hand.  And drag him quickly into the foxhole.  While if it’s a woman in that foxhole she may have to get out completely and expose herself to enemy fire as she uses both hands to slowly drag that wounded Marine to safety.  And likely getting shot in the process.

Soldiers need to be strong.  The stronger the better.  And the more likely he or she will kill the enemy before the enemy kills him or her.  There should not be different requirements for men and women.  There should be only one requirement.  For Marines.  If women want to fight in combat they should be as strong as men.  Or they shouldn’t be there.  Just like we don’t have women in the NFL.  Which isn’t as hard as being a soldier.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Apparently Women don’t mind being Objectified as long as it is for Something Luxurious

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 7th, 2013

Week in Review

Sex sells.  And women sell sex.  Apparently (see Women Hate Sexually Explicit Ads, Unless They’re Selling Something Expensive by Katy Waldman posted 12/5/2013 on Slate).

According to researchers led by the University of Minnesota’s Kathleen Vohs, women find erotically charged ads less distasteful when they promote very expensive items. We like our objectification classed up, thank you…

The researchers explain their findings by way of sexual economics theory, which treats the heterosexual dating pool as a marketplace and sex as a commodity. The story goes that since women sell sex to men in exchange for resources—including hard-to-quantify ones like attention—they want the world to perceive their eroticized bodies as “rare and precious.” Ads that link female sexuality to exclusive, high-value goods help; ads that equate a woman’s erotic charms to a cheapo Casio timepiece obviously do not. “Using sexual images to promote an inexpensive product fosters undesirable associations between sex and cheapness, commonness, or low value, which is antithetical to women’s preferences about how sex should be understood,” the authors write.

There was an episode of Scrubs where Carla and Eliot (best gal pals) were talking about sex.  The conversation veered into a night of sex between Carla and her husband.  Eliot said something like, “You didn’t do that, did you?”  And Carla replied, “Of course not.  I’m saving that for something nice.  Like a tennis bracelet.”  Of course, the that they were talking about was anal sex.  Something a lot of men want.  But not their ladies.  Unless they can get something real nice in exchange, that is.  Like a tennis bracelet.

Apparently life imitates art.  Women do sell sex.  As long as it’s for something really nice.  Something as rare and precious as their sexual goods.  Perhaps this why Ted Night’s wife was so offended when Rodney Dangerfield said, “You’re a lot of woman, you know that? Yeah, wanna make 14 dollars the hard way?” in Caddyshack.  Perhaps if he had offered to buy her a villa in Tuscany she would have been flattered.

Maybe this is why the Democrats are such advocates of free birth control and access to abortion.  For the economics of it.  For a lady being with child must discount her sexual goods in the left’s eyes.  Making them less ‘rare and precious’ as, say, a lingerie model.  How the left like their women.  Based on how they’ve sexualized them (all that birth control and abortion helps keep them barren and sexual).  And an inconvenient/untimely pregnancy could be the difference between a cheapo Casio timepiece and a luxurious 18 carat gold Cartier chronometer.  The kind of gift rich men buy their lingerie model girlfriends who are young enough to be their daughters.  Which is the price these old men must pay to enjoy their sexual goods.

Of course this begs the question if their sexual goods are so ‘rare and precious’ why do they give then away so much that they need birth control and abortion?  The whole concept of ‘hooking up’ makes a woman’s sexual goods anything but rare.  If it’s a smorgasbord for men out there that makes these sexual goods cheapo Casio timepieces.  For when they meet at a party on campus no one is giving a woman a luxurious 18 carat gold Cartier chronometer for a roll on some stranger’s unmade bed.  Actually, it’s the monogamous married woman who has the rare and precious goods.  Because only one person has access to them.  Making them the ultimate ‘must have’ that no one can.  What some misogynist and hedonistic men prize above all others.  Bedding the elusive married women.  The ultimate forbidden fruit.  A prim and proper lady.

This is what the left prefers.  Less lady-like behavior and more overt sexuality.  Casual sex with multiple partners.  Reducing women to their sexual goods.  While Republicans prefer marriage and monogamy.  And yet it’s the Republicans that have a war on women.  Go figure.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , ,

FT199: “If Republicans want women barefoot and pregnant then Democrats want women with their legs spread and barren.” —Old Pithy

Posted by PITHOCRATES - December 6th, 2013

Fundamental Truth

1950s Society did not Depict their Women Sexually

Democrats bemoan that the Republicans want to take America back to the 1950s.  Where women didn’t work.  But stayed at home and raised families.  Where they ware barefoot and pregnant.  With three jobs in the household.  A cook in the kitchen.  A maid in the house.  And a whore in the bedroom.  Always serving the needs of others.  But never themselves.  While their husbands go out and build a career.  And enjoy life.  Leaving their wives behind to suffer from the disease of pregnancy over and over again.  And the oppression of motherhood.

Of course the Republicans don’t quite see it that way.  They don’t see pregnancy as a disease.  Or raising a family as oppression.  They see a loving household as a good thing.  Where they can raise their children to be good citizens.  To respect one another.  And to treat women like ladies.  To respect them.  And protect their dignity.  To be chivalrous.  To hold a door for them.  To offer their seat to them on a crowded bus.  To think of them as human beings.  And not just as vessels holding their sexual parts.  Sexual objects that are only useful when a man wants to have a good time.

Democrats disparage those old television shows like Father Knows Best, The Donna Reed Show, Leave it to Beaver, Ozzie and Harriet, etc.  Because they treated their women horribly.  There was no hooking up or casual sex at all.  For 1950s society did not depict their women sexually.  They dressed and acted conservatively.  No bare midriffs, lower back tattoos, plunging necklines or exposed thongs for men to leer at.  Men were polite to women.  And boys were polite to girls.  Unless they had cooties.  Even then if they were mean parents, teachers and older siblings admonished them for that.  Oh yeah, it was sheer hell for women back then.

Democrats have Liberated Women to be Pure Sex Objects for Men everywhere to Enjoy

Then came the Sixties.  And the Sexual Revolution.  The counterculture (i.e., young Democrats) railed against treating women with respect.  For they have vaginas.  And they should use them as often as they darn well pleased.  Not to just get married and raise a family.  To one man for the rest of their life.  The heck with that.  They should use their sexual parts to please more than just one man.  So instead of only one man enjoying her vagina a woman should allow many men to enjoy her vagina.  It was the dawn of the women’s movement.  Feminism.  And never again would American society treat women like prim and proper ladies.  At least not with feminists around.

As the conservatives tried to maintain a lady’s honor the young liberal Democrats fought censorship.  For the right to show naked women with their legs spread in pornographic magazines.  To show them fully naked in the movies.  In simulated sex acts.  And performing real sex acts in hardcore pornographic movies.  Yes, Democrats have finally liberated women to be pure sex objects for men everywhere to enjoy.  Of course Democrats called this liberating.  While dirty old (and young) men just say, “Thank you!”

Seedy strip clubs became high-scale gentlemen’s clubs.  Where women stripped down to a thong and rubbed herself on a man’s lap.  Or did more in the VIP/champagne rooms.  Yes, this was liberating for women.  Sexy women were everywhere.  Half-naked women sold things on television.  Boys could peak at naked women spreading their legs in magazines at the local drug store.  Most R-rated movies contained gratuitous nude scenes.  And when the VCR came out pornography really took off.  Women became slabs of meat on camera.  Making hundreds of titles.  Putting a lot of miles on their vaginas.  And other openings.

Democrats are doing everything within their Power to Nationalize a Woman’s Vagina

So who do the kings of the sexual exploitation of women vote for?  These businesses all vote Democrat.  Because they don’t want to roll time back to the 1950s when women weren’t sexual objects.  For they profit handsomely on the liberation of women.  While bombarding men with their pornographic images.  So that when they see a woman today they’re not thinking about what she’s thinking.  They’re thinking about what she looks like naked.  And how much they would like to do things with her that they do in those pornographic films.  Sometimes forcing the issue with alcohol and drugs.  Bringing terms like ‘date-rape’ and ‘roofie’ into the lexicon.  For the American left has so sexualized women that more and more men can think of nothing else but hooking up.

The Democrats have long championed birth control and abortion.  To remove any consequences from a sexually active lifestyle.  Encouraging women to offer their vaginas to as many men as possible.  Which they have.  Kicking off an epidemic of sexually transmitted diseases.  And not because women’s husbands were seeing prostitutes at the local saloon like they were before Prohibition.  Bringing diseases home to their wives.  Which helped kick off the Prohibition movement as men drank away their paychecks and did bad things.  Like being abusive to their wives and giving them syphilis and other STDs. No.  Today women are out there hooking up for casual sex.  Bringing STDs into their lives.  Because Democrats have taught them all their lives that they should be having casual sex.  Instead of getting married.  Because that would be a living hell.

Perhaps the greatest political trick ever done was how Democrats got women to choose to be sexual objects.  Getting them to believe that casual sex with many different partners is liberating.   And not objectifying.  The next greatest political trick ever done was how these same Democrats convinced women that it’s the Republicans that have a war on women.  Not the Democrats.  Who are doing everything within their power to nationalize a woman’s vagina.  So feminist men (who are mostly Democrat) can enjoy a lady’s charms without having to marry her.  Like they did in the God-awful 1950s.  Where Republican men kept their women barefoot and pregnant.  Well, if Republicans want women barefoot and pregnant then Democrats want women with their legs spread and their wombs barren.  Yet it’s the Republicans who have a war on women.  Go figure.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

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

Uncle Sam wants You in Combat if you’re an Ugly Woman

Posted by PITHOCRATES - November 23rd, 2013

Week in Review

Does a woman belong in a combat role in the Army?  If she is as strong as a man and as willing to get as dirty as a man, perhaps.  But if she is wearing makeup while deployed on duty in a combat zone?  I don’t know.  For it looks like  that woman is apparently more concerned about maintaining her femininity than the mission at hand (see U.S. Army told to advertise for recruits using ‘average looking women’ because they are perceived as more competent than prettier soldiers by Jennifer Smith posted 11/20/2013 on the Daily Mail).

A U.S. Army spokeswoman has said images of ‘average-looking women’ should be used in recruitment advertisement as photographs of more attractive soldiers confuse the reality of the roles in combat.

A leaked email that circulated revealed how a leading strategy analyst affirmed ‘ugly women are perceived as competent while pretty women are perceived as having used their looks to get ahead.’

Colonel Lynette Arnhart, who is heading a team of experts studying how best [t]o integrate women into service, condemned advertising images used in the past as they ‘undermine the rest of the message’…

‘For example, the attached article shows a pretty woman, wearing make-up while deployed on duty.

‘Such photos undermine the rest of the message (and may even make people ask if breaking a nail is considered a hazardous duty’…

Ms Arnhart cited a photograph used last year that depicted a female soldier with mud on her face as one which ‘sends a different message’ in the email that was obtained by POLITICO.

‘(It is) One of women willing to do the dirty work necessary to get the job done.’

If a woman is wearing cosmetics in the field there goes any arguments of equality out the window.  For men don’t wear cosmetics in the field.  In fact, they are prohibited from wearing cosmetics (see Army Regulation 670–1, Chapter 1, Introduction, Hair and fingernail standards and grooming policies • 1–8, page 3).

b. Cosmetics.

(1) General. As with hairstyles, the requirement for standards regarding cosmetics is necessary to maintain uniformity and to avoid an extreme or unmilitary appearance. Males are prohibited from wearing cosmetics, to include nail polish. Females are authorized to wear cosmetics with all uniforms, provided they are applied conservatively and in good taste and complement the uniform. Leaders at all levels must exercise good judgment in the enforcement of this policy.

That’s not equality.  Why is a woman even wearing makeup in full combat gear while deployed on duty?  Because she wants to be pretty when she’s killing the enemy?  Because she wants to be attractive to her fellow soldiers?  To her superiors?  Just to feel pretty?  If so, why?  Why is this an issue for women in combat?  It isn’t for men.

No judgment is needed with men in combat.  No makeup.  Period.  To borrow a word from President Obama.  For women it’s a different story.  It’s not an objective black and white issue.  It’s a subjective gray area.  Some makeup is okay if it’s conservatively applied.  It’s a judgment call.  Where different leaders may have different judgments.  And this isn’t good in a world where there are no individuals.

There are no individuals in the military.  They drill that out of you during basic training.  Everyone dresses the same.  Everyone marches the same.  Everyone salutes the same.  For there are no individuals.  Only positions of rank.  But women are treated differently.  And complicate things.  Which can’t be good for the overall mission.  Especially when top brass are writing emails discussing how women in combat gear shouldn’t be too pretty and should wear mud on her face instead of makeup to send the right message.

www.PITHOCRATES.com

Share

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

« Previous Entries