Cognitive Dissonance – Clintonites Be Like…



Trump Creepin’ on Clinton? Gimme a break!

Ermagerd!  He’s so creepy!

To my fellow travelers on the Trump Train, here’s how we should deal with this absurd claim that Trump was creeping on Hillary in that second debate.

Donald Trump is married to the beautiful, intelligent, exotic Melania Trump.


Yeah, Hillary Clinton’s got nothin’ he wants!  Boom!  I’m out!


Christine Sommers is consistently pro-choice – deal with it!


Christina Sommers has been very consistent in her pro-choice position.  She’s always supported a “woman’s right” to choose abortion*, and has always opposed government funding for abortion.  She sees it as a freedom, not an entitlement.  Despite this, “rationalwiki” claims that her views have modified.  This article is informative, but somewhat slanted, as it follows Sommers unique life as a feminist and seems to describe her as drifting away from feminism.  On abortion, their claim that she has “modified” her stance on abortion is based in part on her position that abortion should not be pushed onto women who oppose it for religious or other reasons.  Yeah, that’s called being pro-choice…as opposed to being pro-abortion.  Many so-called pro-choicers are actually pro-abortion, such as by opposing even so much as a 24 hour waiting period for a woman seeking an abortion, or requiring women receive some basic medical information.  Sommers just wants women to have the choice, she isn’t trying to make it happen.

The “rationalwiki” article’s other justification for saying she’s “modified” her position is the following quote:

“I find it appalling that there is such a disregard for what is in fact a majority of our countrymen [pro-lifers] who view it differently, and some passionately. Rather than attack them as somehow engaged in some kind of dark conspiracy against women’s bodies, we have to understand why they hold these positions… and why it’s not going away as a moral question.”

So, she recognizes that prolifers have other reasons for opposing abortion than being “anti-woman”, or trying to control women.  I’m pro-life, and have no desire to control women.  I want to stop the termination of an innocent life.  If women don’t want a baby, and use birth control, that’s their choice.

What this really boils down to, as you can see from the general tone of the “rationalwiki” article, is that Christine Sommers is an independent feminist, rather than just another vitriolic, rape-fear mongering, male basher spouting talking points about a non-existent patriarchy.  Sommers is a true feminist in that she believes women are equal to men, and will likewise stand up for men by the same standard.  This has caused her to be perceived by others as an “anti-feminist”, which the article admits.  However, the article falls into the same kind of paradigm thinking, assuming that feminism is what we are led to believe it is, rather than what it is actually.

Today’s “feminists”, after a lengthy male bashing tirade, and denouncing fellow women who don’t conform to the current “third wave of feminism”, or pretending to speak on behalf of all woman kind, then quote the dictionary definition of feminism, as follows:

“the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities” from Merriam Webster 

Most self-identified feminists have little in common with this definition, but Christine Sommers is the real deal.  Due to Sommers’s courageous stand for gender equality, many in the “feminist movement”, particularly the “third wave”, find it hard to accept that she really does believe in women’s rights, including abortion.*  Her consistency and devotion to gender equality puts the modern “feminist” movement to shame.

*For the record, I do not consider abortion to be a “woman’s right” or anyone’s right.  Nobody has the right to kill an innocent unborn child.  I do believe in a woman’s right to use birth control, and with that right, I fail to see why abortion is necessary.  Don’t want to get pregnant, buy a $1 condom!

Bring back Bossy


Do you remember the whole #banbossy movement?  It was a mostly feminist effort to ban, or socially ostracize the word “bossy” because they decided that it was used to discourage assertive women who sought leadership roles.  They seemed to think that only strong women are called “bossy”, while strong men are respected for their leadership skills.

Some time back, I had a boss, an older lady about 5 feet tall, probably around 60 years old, blonde hair, and a deep raspy voice from years of smoking.  She was a strong woman who anyone with any sense knew not to mess with.  She’s also about the nicest boss I’ve ever worked for!  Anytime she wanted me to do something, she never told me.  She asked.  She’d always call it a “favor”, even though it was really me just doing my job.  She’d always say please and thank you.  Whenever someone did an exceptional job, she always showered them with verbal appreciation.  Result?  Everyone loved her, everyone respected her, and stuff got done.

I also remember a young female supervisor from my UPS days, also blonde, also about 5 feet tall.  I grew to like her later on, but at first, she was bossy.  She shouted orders, repeated them even more angrily if you didn’t hear her (it was a very noisy warehouse environment).  She’d instruct me to do one task, and then catch me in mid task and order me to change.  I’m a completest by nature, and hate leaving something unfinished.  It’s as painful to me as holding my breath, and finishing the task is like suddenly breathing again.  Well, she was actually a smart, and very driven lady, but she really needed to change her attitude.  Over the years, she did!  My last impression of her is of her very effectively running a safe and efficient sort aisle.  She still had a stern nature, but had learned to be more consistent with instructions, and explained to her employees why things were being done a certain way, rather than just ranting orders.

I myself, many months ago, was trying to be more leader-like at a job.  I started seeing myself as the glue that held that place together, in part because I was training most new hires.  I came up with some of my own ideas to make things run better, and made the changes without consulting anyone.  My coworkers went along with it, and I’ve seen recently that my changes are still in effect.  When I needed something done, I didn’t ask, I told, especially when things were hectic.  I didn’t mean to be a prick, but I was.  Finally, a much older coworker, a veteran that I respect, pulled me aside and gave me some straight talk.  He told me flat out “You’re not the boss around here”.  It wasn’t pleasant, but I knew he was right.  Did I play victim?  Did I act like he was trying to discourage me?  Did I try to #banbossy?  No.  I apologized to him, because I knew he was right.  It was no fun being told that I was “bossy”, but I’m so glad that he told me (Oh, and I’m a man by the way).  I’ve since learned that no matter how logical my ideas are, you don’t manage people effectively just by being right.  If bossy men or women want to be treated with respect, they need to be respectful.  I’ve now learned that if I ask people nicely, and then say thank you, I get far better results.

Let’s bring “bossy” back.  I don’t mean bossiness, I mean the word “bossy”.  If someone is being bossy, have a talk with them one on one.  Don’t do it in front of coworkers, it’s embarrassing and disrespectful.  Do it in private.  That shows that even though you’re having an unpleasant discussion, you’re doing it not to hurt them, but to improve a situation.  If any women have been manipulated by the #banbossy video or movement, I ask that you instead take “bossy” as constructive criticism.  You’re not being called “bossy” because you’re a woman.  It’s because you need to improve you’re PR.  I know it’s easy to get so focused on the job itself that you just want things to get done, but your coworkers are human beings, not computers, and will go the extra mile for you if your make them feel good about working for you.  The small effort of a few kind words will pay you back tenfold in efforts towards the task at hand.  Just try it!

Interesting link(s):

Ana Kasperian and guests give a solid criticism of the #banbossy campaign

Kaley Cuoco-Sweeting is alright by me


Kaley Cuoco-Sweeting’s recent comments, that she doesn’t consider herself a feminist, are not surprising.  There was a very predictable angry reaction by twitter feminists that I’d like to address.

Feminists of the past made many great achievements for women in America and the world, such as voting rights, rights to education, careers, property rights and the right to pursue leadership positions in government or the private sector.  That Kaley doesn’t embrace the feminist label today, does not betray these feminists of the past.  Today’s “feminists” are far less interested in equality, and far more interested in male bashing, playing victim, crying “RAPE!” anytime a woman regrets having sex (but not men of course), and demanding tax-payer funding for the consequences of their sexual liberty.  I’m not surprised that an intelligent, successful, and happily married Kaley has no interest in THAT feminism.  She actually explained it very well in the interview, that she’s never experienced the kind of discrimination and inequality that feminism stands against.

That she loves “serving her man” is not a statement of subordination.  I love making my wife happy, and she loves making me happy.  Dr. Phil used to say that a successful “marriage isn’t 50/50, but 100/100.”  Sure, you make compromises, but if you love your spouse, there’s no quid pro quo.  You are happy making them happy, and I see no reason why a liberated woman can’t cook for her husband if it makes HER happy.

As always, there’s the “feminist” or two who refers to the “meaning of feminism”, usually the dictionary definition.  Yes, the dictionary defines feminism as “the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities” because that is the traditional definition, and it is what feminists of the past fought for.  I fail to see how forcing Hobby Lobby to pay for birth control, or crying rape while simultaneously pushing for gun control (making it harder for women to protect themselves) is consistent with that definition.  I think Kaley knows exactly what “feminism” has come to mean, and that’s why she has no interest in it.

Lastly, I’d like to defend her role in The Big Bang Theory, as Penny.


Maybe based on the pilot, one might get the impression that Penny was the stereotypical “dumb blonde”, but as the show developed, one could see this was not the case.  Penny isn’t ditsy, she isn’t spoiled, and she isn’t shallow.  She does have a far-fetched dream of becoming an actress, which she eventually gives up on by the current Season 8 in favor of a more promising career.  Throughout the series, Penny is often the street smart character who has bailed out her genius male friends more than once.  They’ve bailed her out too.  That’s what friends do.

Besides, the show as a whole is not giving the impression that women are dumb and men are brilliant scientists…if you bother to watch past the pilot episode.  Next came Bernadette, who started off as a Cheesecake Factory waitress, but earned a PhD in Microbiology, and became a successful researcher and developer for a big pharm company.  My personal disdain for that industry aside, Bernadette is not some dumb blonde clearly, though she may appear that way at first glance.  Then came Amy, Sheldon’s “girl slash friend”, later “girlfriend”.  Amy is a socially awkward, brilliant neurosurgeon who, like Sheldon, slowly becomes more sociable and street smart thanks to her friendship with Penny…you know…the “dumb blond waitress”?

Does chastity hurt men more than women?

Elizabeth Raines

Elizabeth Raines auctioned off her virginity and claimed that chastity is a tool of female suppression.  I think she has it backwards.  I do agree with her point that a woman’s morality should be judged by her kindness, courage, character, etc. and not by whether or not she is a virgin.  However, I contend that this double standard hurts men far more than women.

I spent much of my early adult life holding the belief that sex should be saved until marriage, and I lived up to my own standards.  However, I eventually learned the truth.  Women who are virgins, who are perceived as “innocent” are far more attractive to men, than such “innocent” men are to women.  Men are so often attracted to innocence.  The age old appeal of “deflowering” still holds true.  Woman, however, are rarely attracted to innocent men.  Women are attracted to confidence, boldness, experience, etc.  If you are naturally confident and bold as a man, you might be able to get away with being inexperienced.  However, if you are not, experience might be the only way you can gain such confidence.

The truth is that from a very young age, boys are pressured to “get some”, even sometimes by their parents.  My parents were very supportive of my morals, but I know many others are not, and I understand why.  As much as “feminists” complain about how men are only interested in one thing, their very sense of liberation, their very desire to fully free themselves from any kind of self-control and indulge all of their primal urges causes them to make themselves readily available to such experienced men.  As men see what these women are attracted to, they adjust themselves accordingly.

I realized this in my late twenties, but only did what was necessary.  Instead of turning into just another guy and learning to attract such ordinary women, I gained just what experience was necessary, and then found one of the good ones.  My wife is truly one in a billion…or 7 billion (the global population).

Fortunately, things finally turned out well for me, but I’ll never forget what I learned.  That Elizabeth Raines was able to auction her virginity only further proves my point.*  Can you imagine a man selling his virginity?  Part of me wants to encourage Raines to reconsider, as her first time should be “something special”.  However, mine was not, and I’m glad it wasn’t.  I wanted it to be cheap and meaningless, because my “purity and morality” had become my burden.  My first time was not cheap and meaningless, but it was with a friend.  She was unaware that it was my first.  I didn’t want her to feel any guilt, so I didn’t tell her until after.  (I don’t know if that makes sense).  I have no regrets.  Even as I spoke to my priest of this, and I considered it technically a sin, he saw right through me and knew that I had no regrets.

Chastity, therefore, is much better for women today than it is for men, at least in the western world.  While women have been “liberated” from social pressures to be “pure”, men have not been liberated by social pressures to “become a man”.  When freedom of choice is truly respected, and decisions are made with the mind rather than arousal, only then will we have evolved beyond our more primal ancestors.  Until then, at least on sexuality, we’re just dressed up cave people.

*Ms. Raines did change her mind, however.  She was persuaded by her university and employer to focus on her studies and work.


This article sparked my interest in writing this piece

Hobby Lobby Strikes a Blow for Religious Liberty


If Hobby Lobby put a stipulation on their employees that not one penny of their paychecks could be used for birth control, I’d be siding with the employees.  But that is not the case.  Nobody is losing their reproductive rights simply because Hobby Lobby doesn’t have to pay for it directly.  These employees are free to use their hard earned money however they wish, including, but not limited to birth control.  I could write pages denouncing the victim/entitled mentality of the so-called feminists on this, but I think Teresa Mull at did so already very effectively, so I will instead encourage you to read her article.  My only criticism of this otherwise witty piece is that she continuously denounces “feminists”, and I don’t think that’s entirely fair to genuine feminists who actually do believe women are equal to men, and don’t need some big bad government to come in and subsidize their lady parts.

I’d also like to reiterate a point made by Lee Doren a few years back on this same topic.  Birth control doesn’t have to be expensive.  For one thing, condoms are actually very cheap.  You can buy one for about $1, or a big box for much cheaper per condom.  They are more effective than the pill anyway, and significantly reduce the risk of most STDs.  Furthermore, some birth control pills are more affordable than others.  (See the Doren vid)  But of course, as always with the left, this isn’t really about solutions.  It’s about control.  They wanted so badly to impose their beliefs on Hobby Lobby, and thanks to the Supreme Court (don’t say it, I know I’m not always a fan of them), but thanks to them, Hobby Lobby’s first amendment rights are protected.


Teresa Mill’s article in

Lee Doren’s video on affordable birth control, and he gives non-religious reasons to oppose this part of Obamacare, since the left likes to pretend it’s all about religion: