The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Study: Lesbians in U.S. Earn 20% More Than Heterosexual Women

Posted on | March 31, 2015 | 39 Comments

CNN has been giving hourly updates to hype claims that a religious freedom law in Indiana could unleash hateful discrimination against gay people. This appears to be a media-driven hysteria. Nineteen other states have laws similar to Indiana’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which is modeled after a federal law Bill Clinton signed. Yet the question needs to be asked: Exactly how much workplace discrimination do gay people face and what is its impact?

This chart is from the Germany-based Institute for the Study of Labor, and is from a study which found that lesbians in the United States earn 20% more than do heterosexual woman. Although I’m not sure if I trust these findings, let us stipulate that the study is accurate and ask: Why is this so? Is it because employers are pro-lesbian? Are companies prejudiced against heterosexual women?

Keep in mind the oft-quoted claim that women earn 77 cents on the dollar in comparison to men. As critics of that statistic point out, once you account for differences in education, occupation and other variables, the male-female “wage gap” disappears. That is to say, actual differences between men and women — not sexist discrimination — explain the disparity of earnings. Could this also be true in regard to the lesbian/straight “wage gap” among women? Yes, obviously so.

One reason for the male-female “wage gap” is simply the fact that women are more likely to leave the work force and stay home with their children. Women have a lower work force participation rate than men and, if motherhood explains most of the “wage gap,” it is obvious that this factor would benefit lesbians, who are less likely to become mothers. Interestingly, we find that a very different scenario is evident in the institute’s findings about the earnings of gay men.

According to the same study, gay men earn 16% less than do their heterosexual male counterparts. If earning differentials were caused by discrimination inspired by anti-gay prejudice, we might expect that both male and female homosexuals would show less income than heterosexuals. Yet it appears otherwise, and we can only conclude that other variables — not prejudicial anti-gay discrimination — are the decisive factor in this pattern. What are those variables? We don’t know, but permit me to suggest a controversial hypothesis: Differences in sexual orientation are not random and insignificant; rather, sexuality tends to be a sort of psychological dye-marker for personality types, and differences in personality result in differences in behavior that, in turn, produce differences in earnings.

We need not think in terms of sexist or homophobic stereotypes to accept this hypothesis. Gay men and lesbians often joke about the differences between them. There is a well-known joke:

What does a lesbian bring to a second date?
A U-Haul.
What does a gay man bring to a second date?
What’s a ‘second date’?

In other words, gay male culture is notoriously promiscuous, whereas lesbians are equally notorious for their preference for long-term intimate relationships, so that by the second date, they’re ready to move in together. And the legalization of same-sex marriage has demonstrated this tendency, as 64% of such unions are between two women, so that lesbian weddings outnumber gay male weddings nearly 2-to-1.

Doesn’t this data offer potential clues about the income differentials between these two groups? That is to say, if lesbians earn substantially more than straight women but gay men earn substantially less than straight men, isn’t it possible that this is due to the same personality and behavioral differences we observe in the data about same-sex marriage? Once we accept the premise that differences between men and women are both real and significant — rather than imaginary or artificial “social constructs” — it stands to reason that sexual preference would reflect differences that are also real and significant. Correlation is not causation, but neither are correlations in social-science data entirely random.

Angry protests about the possibility of anti-gay “discrimination” in Indiana fail to take into account the question of whether policies that forbid discrimination are either necessary or efficacious. As we have seen most recently in the Ellen Pao case, “equal opportunity” law has the effect of inciting lawsuits by disgruntled employees who cannot prove they are victims of prejudice. If we are willing to accept that general differences between men and women (or between gays and lesbians) are both real and significant, a lot of what might otherwise appear to be “discrimination” is really nothing of the kind.

“Actually, it’s mostly about satisfying the Democrats’ core constituencies’ bottomless desire to feel morally superior.”
— Professor Glenn Reynolds

Those of us who favor economic liberty believe that human beings are capable of acting rationally in their own self-interest. We believe that businesses should have wide latitude in their personnel policies for this reason. The managers of an enterprise have the responsibility of maximizing productivity, and decisions about hiring and promotion are essential to that responsibility. Managers ought not have their personnel decisions constantly subjected to scrutiny by quota-mongering “social justice” activists who have no responsibility to anyone other than themselves and slogan-shouting protest mobs.

Men and women are different. Gays and lesbians are different. It is not “hate” to say so. It is simply the truth.





 

Category: Economics, Gays

Meet ‘Tony’; Senator Reid’s Occasional 6’2″, 225lb, Taciturn ‘Retirement Advisor’

Posted on | March 30, 2015 | 13 Comments

by Sissypuss the Blog Kitty

I got word via Her Majesty’s spy network (what’s a little ‘stealth outsourcing’ between frenemies, eh?) that Tony Scambilloni had a flight booked for Dulles. This within hours of the surprise announcement that Harry “the Cadaver” Reid was not intending to transition from un- to fully-dead right there on the Senate floor, railing about the Koch brothers or some other invented anti-Progressive bugbear. No, Poor, Poor, Pitiful Reid would leave his final trail of embalming fluid in the Senate halls after the 2016 election, and return to afflict Searchlight, Nevada with his lousy personality.

In stark contrast, how can you not love a Renaissance thug like Tony, whose art forgeries cost almost as much as an evening engagement with his chamber quartet, Chin Music? Of course, he had no hourly rate for his “professional services”, which ran the gamut of consulting from matters of body, to mind, to soul.

Access to the 5th floor ventilation in the Hart Building, especially on such short notice, would have been relatively hard for anyone bigger than a feline. Especially without the correct connections. However, arrangements were made, and a helpful security guard “let the cat out of the bag”. (Oh, shut up! You’d’ve used that gag, too.)

The wait was less than an hour there, behind the ventilation grill in the corner of room 522. Harry sat at his desk, illuminated by a banker’s lamp, his good side in profile, one chair and the door in view. Reid, shaking and wheezing, worked at a stack of paper, and swore with more rhythm and passion than one would have thought him incapable of mustering, based upon the usual stream of porridge he emitted on the Senate floor.

The door opened abruptly, with a precisely measured fury. The hall light flooding the room mostly shadowed a man in a black suit bearing an instrument case. Tony.

Reid’s remaining good eye got squinty. “What the philharmonic are you doing here?” he demanded, as Tony shut the door firmly, then strode over to sit in the visible chair. He could have been visiting a junior college professor, and not the United States Senate Minority Leader, for all the waves of disdain exuded. The instrument case occupied what I presumed was another chair on the opposite desk corner. The light of the banker’s lamp on the desk somehow moved Tony’s look away from Robert DeNiro and more toward a Harvey Keitel.

Credit “The Cadaver”: he came out with guns blazing. “You tell Sam Nazarian that, if he wants to see his dreams realized, he’d better learn to be patient.”

Tony never took his eyes off of Reid, but leaned over toward the other chair. I heard the latches thump open, and my heart raced. Had there ever been violence in a Senator’s office? Tony raised an object to his face, and I thought it was some sort of barrel pointing at Reid until the bow started into a slow, perfect rendition of Lux Aeterna by Clint Mansell, from Requiem for a Dream.

After a few minutes, the ever-cultured Harry Reid was having none of it. “Who in the name of Robert Byrd do you think you are?” Tony paused while Reid drew breath. “You come into my office–where is my security?!?!?!–like you came into my home, threatening me with this Charlie Daniels crap, and I’m supposed to take you seriously? I don’t fear you. If they wanted me dead, I’d be room temperature. If they want me to carry through on the deal, they can just quit sending your to bully me, and let me get things done!” Reed took off his glasses and threw them on the desk. Taking Tony out of focus was one way to deal with the sudden wave of fear washing over him. Tony stood, and carefully set his fine instrument and bow back in the case.

Reid was visibly trembling as Tony turned abruptly and leaned over the desk. His bow hand came down flat on Reid’s glasses, deliberately crushing them, before he whisked the debris off the desk to SLAP! against the wall. Tony got in Harry’s face “Catherine Cortez Masto had better understand that, if she assumes your seat, she assumes your debt.”

“There’s no way she’s going to have the skill to work off that kind of dead horse,” said Reid with a mixture of realism and pride. Oh, and a jigger of fear.

“She’s your disciple, isn’t she? Tell her it’s a student loan.” With that, Tony swung brought his left arm around slowly, and touched the ravaged right side of Reid’s face with his pinky finger, eliciting a gasp.

“Here,” said Tony, handing Reid an invitation. “Since I ‘accidentally’ broke your glasses, I’ll help you. It’s for tomorrow tonight at 9 P.M., at the Cosmos Club. Come hear a little Chin Music. Bring the wife. She deserves a little culture for having to tolerate a pernicious swine like you.”

I made good my escape from the Hart Building. Once outside, I laughed like Joe Biden convincing an unwitting child to pull his finger.

Category: Democrats, humor

‘Peak Hipster’ in San Francisco

Posted on | March 30, 2015 | 54 Comments

“Affordable housing” is one of those phrases, like “social justice” and “sexual equality,” that sounds like a good thing, until you realize it’s a license for totalitarianism. For most of us, “affordable housing” means living someplace where we can afford the rent. The advocates of “affordable housing,” however, always want to live someplace we couldn’t afford to live — a trendy urban location — and demand a system of taxpayer subsidies and/or burdensome regulations to force others to allow them to live in a high-rent community at below-market rates. To put it as simply as possible, they’re moochers and “affordable housing” is about protecting their right to mooch.

The enemy of affordable housing is “gentrification,” which is what happens when people with actual jobs who can afford to pay rent at market value start moving into a trendy urban location where the moochers live. Regular Right Guy calls our attention to the gentrification crisis in San Francisco:

On a sunny Monday afternoon in early March, tenants from Station 40, an affordable housing complex in San Francisco’s rapidly gentrifying Mission District, joined with activists from the Housing Rights Committee and Anti-Eviction Mapping Project to hold a press conference condemning one of the latest evictions happening in the city. In late February, Station 40 tenants were slapped with an eviction notice from their landlords, Ahuva, Emanuel and Barak Jolish.
The complex houses more than a dozen tenants at 3030B 16th Street in the Mission. It sits right across the street from the 16th Street Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) stop. Station 40 has provided affordable housing for its residents for the past 11 years. It is also known for housing members of activist groups like Food Not Bombs, which shares home-cooked, free meals on the 16th Street BART plaza every week, and Coffee Not Cops, which shares free coffee and pastries at the same plaza and organizes against police patrols in the area.
“Station 40 has been home to anarchist, queer and transgender refugees, broke people, veterans against war, those healing from the prison system, lifelong San Franciscans, immigrants, people with disabilities, and those who were previously homeless,” according to the groups’ press statement. Station 40 has also “hosted and/or organized hundreds of anticapitalist-oriented events, including fund-raiser, critical discussions, film screenings and performances, assemblies, book releases, art shows and workshops, and indie media projects, contributing to the rebel spirit of the Bay Area.”

Gosh, we’re sorry to hear about the end of your anti-police/anti-capitalist “anarchist, queer and transgender” scene, hipsters.

Maybe you can organize for social justice in Mom’s basement.

 

Category: Economics

Poll Confirms Public Education Has Corrupted the Morals of America’s Youth

Posted on | March 30, 2015 | 14 Comments

Taxpayer-funded liberal indoctrination centers have succeeded in turning our nation’s young people into godless amoral scum:

A new poll from the Public Religion Research Institute has some insights.
The poll tested how millennials (ages 18 to 34) view various sexual behaviors, including homosexuality. And about equal numbers say homosexuality is morally wrong (38 percent) and morally acceptable (42 percent). Another 13 percent say it depends on the situation, while 7 percent declined to answer.
What’s most interesting, though, is when you compare homosexual activity to other behaviors tested. The poll shows more millennials think that sex between two people of the same gender is more acceptable than say casual sex between two people with no intention of forming a relationship (37 percent) — though the difference is within the margin of error. And about the same number say having a child out of wedlock is acceptable (40 percent).
About twice as many young people, meanwhile, say homosexual behavior is morally acceptable as say the same about having an abortion (21 percent) and about sex between minors (24 percent).

That sound you heard was high fives being exchanged by the highly paid professional perverts who run the public school system.

 

Category: Education, Gays, Polls, Religion, Sex

Two Men Dressed as Women Ram Their Vehicle into Gate at NSA Headquarters

Posted on | March 30, 2015 | 18 Comments

Officials don’t believe this was terrorism:

One man is dead and another severely injured after gunfire erupted today at one of the main gates of the National Security Agency located at Fort Meade, Maryland.
Shortly before 9 a.m. ET, a vehicle with two people inside “attempted an unauthorized entry at a National Security Agency gate,” according to a statement from the NSA.
“The driver failed to obey an NSA Police officer’s routine instructions for safely exiting the secure campus,” the statement continued. “The vehicle failed to stop and barriers were deployed.”
Sources say the two inside were men dressed as women. Preliminary information indicated the two men were partying at an area hotel with a third individual when they took that individual’s car without permission. However, it’s still unclear how or why they ended up at the NSA gate.
A law enforcement source confirmed that the car that crashed at NSA was reported stolen in Howard County, Maryland.
Nevertheless, when the vehicle “accelerated toward an NSA police car blocking the road” and “refused to stop,” an NSA police officer opened fire, and one of the two men inside the “unauthorized vehicle” ended up dead, the NSA statement said. The other man in the vehicle was “severely injured” and taken to a local hospital, according to sources.

(Via Memeorandum.) To repeat: Crazy people are dangerous.

 

Category: Crime

Do You Want to Be a ‘Male Feminist’?

Posted on | March 30, 2015 | 106 Comments

“Feminism is organized insanity. Why be merely crazy, when you can turn your mental illness into a political movement?”
— Robert Stacy McCain, Jan. 29

If there is anything feminists hate more than Christianity, heterosexuality, America and capitalism, it’s a “male feminist.”

The quotation marks are required because “male feminist” is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. Feminism is a women’s movement, organized for women and led by women, and there is nothing any man can do that will qualify him for membership in the movement.

However, this self-evident truth does not prevent “progressive” males from trying to leverage feminism to their own advantage. The “male feminist” denounces his fellow men — you know, those hateful misogynists over there in the patriarchy — in an effort to persuade feminists that he is an exception to the rule. He is not a sexist oppressor. He does not view women as sex objects. He just wants equality (and a “liberated” girlfriend who doesn’t demand monogamy or a long-term commitment or any of that other bourgeois “responsibility” stuff).

The prototypical “male feminist” was Hugo Schwyzer, a deranged professor who routinely slept with his community college students, nearly killed a woman and had a psychotic meltdown after he was called out for his gross misconduct.

Feminism is based on the belief that all men (collectively) oppress all women (collectively), so that humanity is divided into two groups, male oppressors and female victims. As members of the oppressor group, males are by definition part of the problem (variously termed “patriarchy,” “male supremacy” or “misogyny”) and only women, as members of the victim group, can be permitted to have any voice or influence in defining the solution to this problem. Karen Ingala Smith has explained that anything a man says about feminism contributes to the “silencing of women in the public sphere,” which means that “women’s subordination is reinforced.” Men only seek to be recognized as “feminists” so they can play a role of “leadership and power”:

Those who have power and benefit from it in varying degrees generally do not cede it and share it — they protect and reinforce it. . . .
[Women] are entitled to demand our rights without apology, without reference to how this affects men, without sorting out all the men’s problems too. . . .
That is not to say there is no role for men, just not the role they are used to of leadership and power. Men are very welcome to say that they support us and to consult with us to see in what way they can be most useful to the cause and we will tell them.

In other words, guys: “The First Rule of Feminism Is Shut Up.”

Nevertheless, “progressive” males continue begging for scraps from the feminist table and feminists sometimes give them answers:

Question: Do you believe that there is anything men can do to aid feminism despite not being able to be feminists themselves?
Answer:  Oh, there’s plenty men can do! Unfortunately (for men), none of that gets you the hero status and women fawning over you that most men seem to be after when they decide to engage in feminist causes. Some things that men can do to help are:
– Confront other men in male-dominated spaces when they display sexist behavior (even if there’s no woman looking).
– Do not watch porn or participate in the sex industry in any way. Tell your male friends to do the same.
– Donate money to institutions dedicated to helping women.
– Listen to women and believe them without questioning or playing devil’s advocate when they talk about their experiences.
– Use your privileged voice to create opportunities for women. For example, you can recommend a female coworker for a promotion to your boss, or make sure he pays attention to her work. Women are often invisible or ignored.
– Understand the importance of female-only spaces and protect those spaces. Do not try to invade them and do not let other men do the same.
– Do not let the women in your life do more than their share of housework. Clean your stuff, wash your dishes, change your kid’s diapers, cook your food, and do all of that without being asked to or expecting special praise.
– Respect women’s boundaries and spaces. Do not take more than your share of a seat on a bus or a train, for example, and do not push women around verbally. Women are socialized to be accomodating and will often not enforce their own boundaries for fear of male violence, even if they’re terribly uncomfortable, so you have to recognize this discomfort and back off.
– Do not judge a woman for her appearance. Avoid commenting on it, and never compare her to another woman. If you want to praise a woman, prefer to focus on her intelligence or skills.
– Work to dismantle male supremacy from the inside. Combat your own male socialization, your own entitlement and your own tendency to violence and aggression. Question everything that’s gendered. And do not become defensive or try to justify yourself when a woman calls you out on your male-dominant behavior. Do not use tired cliches like “not all men are like that!” or “but I’m a nice guy!”. Instead, examine your behavior and try to understand why you’re being called out.
– And more important of all, do all of the above without expecting any special reward! Your reward is to be participating in creating a better world that’s fair for everybody. You don’t get to be a “special” man, you don’t get free passes for anything, you don’t get to stand out for being decent. If you feel you deserve anything extra for being a decent human being, that’s your male entitlement at work. Afterall, if you’re helping women to make yourself look good, you are not helping at all.
Hope the info’s useful!

Quite useful, indeed! This was written by a young blogger who describes herself as “The Angry Hairy Lesbian Feminist they’ve warned you about,” and her point is exactly correct: No man can ever expect praise from a feminist, because nothing any man does can ever qualify him for the admiration, trust or respect of a feminist. Because he is male (and therefore, by feminist definition, an oppressor) he is undeserving of love from any female (who is, by definition, his victim).

Someone should write a book to explain this to you guys . . .




 

Category: Feminism, Sex Trouble

Did Mobsters Beat Harry Reid?

Posted on | March 29, 2015 | 53 Comments

John Hinderaker at Powerline returns to the unanswered questions surrounding the retiring Democrat senator’s injuries:

When a guy shows up at a Las Vegas emergency room on New Year’s Day with severe facial injuries and broken ribs, and gives as an explanation the functional equivalent of “I walked into a doorknob,” it isn’t hard to guess that he ran afoul of mobsters. Yet the national press has studiously averted its eyes from Reid’s condition, and has refused to investigate the cause of his injuries. To my knowledge, every Washington reporter has at least pretended to believe Reid’s story, and none, as far as I can tell, has inquired further.

Read the rest. Reid’s corruption is notorious, even by Democrat standards. The media won’t tell the truth about him, but when was the last time the media told the truth about anything?

 

Category: Corruption, Harry Reid

The ‘Rape Epidemic’ That Isn’t

Posted on | March 28, 2015 | 63 Comments

Heather Mac Donald:

The most common statistic thrown out these days by President Obama, Vice President Biden, on down is that one in five women will be the victims of sexual assault during their college careers. Detroit is America’s most violent city. Its violent crime rate for all four violent felonies — that’s rape, murder, aggravated assault, and robbery — is 2%. Its rape rate is 0.05%. A 20% crime rate for any crime, much less one as serious as rape, is virtually unheard of… And yet despite a rape rate that is allegedly 400 times that of Detroit’s, sophisticated, highly educated baby boomer mothers are beating down the doors of campuses to try to get their daughters in. . . . If the rape epidemic was going on as claimed . . . there would be no more campuses. You would have had a massive exodus of girls from college campuses years ago, and a demand to create actually safe environments for student learning. Why hasn’t that happened? Because the campus rape epidemic does not exist.

Read the whole thing at Minding the Campus, and then do this: Go to Google News and search for “teacher + arrest + sex.” How many times a week are public school teachers in America charged with illegally having sex with their underage students? My guess is that it happens more commonly than college students getting raped. So why aren’t feminists marching into your local Board of Education meeting and demanding that something be done about the “rape epidemic” in public schools?

Think about that.

 

Category: Crime, Education, Feminism, Sex
« go back — keep looking »