Hate Crimes and Employment Discrimination

The Democratic Congress has introduced a bill that calls for federal penalties for hate crimes. This bill,

Allows the Attorney General to provide assistance for the criminal investigation of crimes that are considered a felony and are motivated by prejudice based on the perceived or actual race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of the victim.

So what this bill means is that if a guy throws a punch at someone without calling the victim a slur word he will be prosectuted locally, a misdemeanor, but if he calls him a faggot while punching the infractor will have to face federal charges.

A punch is a punch and all should face equal penalties.

I 100% support equal treatment of every citizen under the law. The hate crimes bill undermines that.

In terms of ENDA, I am sympathetic as I have seen so many gay people screwed. But as a business owner I believe that hiring decisions should not be regulated by the federal government.

As a woman in finance, I think our cause has been hurt by prior similar Congressional acts such as the one that forbid employers from asking about pregnancy. Such edict only hurts professional women generally as they are all assumed to be about to be unproductive and cost the company money even if they have no plans to have children. That only hurts the career-focused women who are not planning to have children and tosses them into the group of women who have kids, demand to work part-time and cannot travel.

Helmet Hair or Skeletor?

This image is making it's rounds on Facebook and various female-centric blogs. I guess it's a big deal amongst "my people", but truth be told, I just briefly glanced at it and rolled my eyes.

I can see why it's so infuriating, but I don't think its worth the spike in blood pressure. We've all had a few beers and the conversation of "who we would rather do, Hillary Clinton vs. Ann Coulter? (and/or) John Edwards vs. Mitt Romney?" Unfortunately (or not), our most basic instinct is sex, not bureaucracy.

So really, what is the point in getting all worked up about a chart made by some meat-head graphic arts major with a raging hard on for lady's pant-suits?


Christ, I am just glad someone of my generation was able to name 18 women in politics!

A Steinem in the Bedroom

ScienceDaily reports SELF-INDENTIFYING FEMINISTS ARE MORE FUN IN THE BEDROOM! (can I get a group "duh!"?)

A study done by some Wizards of the Obvious at Rutgers found that, even though meat-heads may avoid them, feminists are not only more satisifed in relationships, but they are also more satisfying for their partners:

"... having a feminist partner was linked to healthier heterosexual relationships for women. Men with feminist partners also reported both more stable relationships and greater sexual satisfaction. According to these results, feminism does not predict poor romantic relationships, in fact quite the opposite."

So gender equality makes for healthier relationships? You don't say! In other news, repeatedly poking yourself in the eye may cause blindness.

The Islamist Campaign Against Women and Girls

I have been away from posting for many weeks as I have been out of town since early June. I know that Baylen now hates me for being so remiss, but I am back at home and ready to make TtP mischief.

There are tons of topics to address, but this one strikes a libertarian chord in me so here will I start: the hatred and oppression of women in Islamist culture. Recently, Islamist thugs on motorbikes opened fire on Afghani school girls, killing two girls and injuring four others, including their teacher.

How anyone could kill girls for going to school is beyond me. Afghani fathers also trade their daughters to settle debts."He gave me nine sheep," Ahmad said, describing his family's woes since taking the loan.

"Because of nine sheep, I gave away my daughter."

Seated beside him in the cramped compound, his daughter Malia's eyes filled with tears. She used a black scarf to wipe them away.

And this is the government that we are backing?

Hitchens wrote a great article on this subject.

In Britain, in the 21st century, there are now honor killings, forced marriages, clerically mandated wife-beatings, incest in all but name, and the adoption of apparel for females that one cannot be sure is chosen by them but which is claimed as an issue of (of all things) free expression. This would be bad enough on its own and if it were confined to the Muslim "community" alone. But, of course, such a toxin cannot be confined, and the votaries of theocracy now claim the God-given right to slaughter females at random for nothing more than their perceived immodesty.

NOW: Dedicated Follower Critic of Fashion

The chicks at NOW are mad at Dolce & Gabbana over a print ad featuring a "fantasy rape". Yeah -- it's the image at left. Note the total lack of "rape" portrayed in the ad. Nevertheless, the designer caved in and pulled the ad.

Check out the puzzling list of ads at NOW's website the group considers offensive versus those it finds positive. Apparently, in most cases, sexy women are offensive, and neutral or ugly ones are positive.

Seriously, though, I wonder what NOW's standards are, considering that this D&G dude with the boner and camera didn't make the "offensive" list.