Category Archives: Sex

How Are So-Called Right-Wing Feminists Different From The Left Variety? Not Much …

Affirmative Action, Argument, Feminism, Gender, Labor, Sex, Technology

So-called right-wing feminists such as Christina Sommers still don’t admit or grasp that, in aggregate, women have different aptitudes to men. Leveling the playing field (an impossibility, unless force is used) to them is just about choosing a different major.

For a more realistic survey of what women do in engineering and how they fare, read my “James Damore V. Google: Man Against Multinational & Matriarchy”:

Despite active recruiting and ample affirmative action, women made up only 14.5 percent and 12.5 percent, respectively, of computer science and electrical engineering graduates, in 2015. While they comprise 21.4 percent of undergraduates enrolled in engineering, females earned only 19.9 percent of all Bachelor’s degrees awarded by an engineering program in 2015.”

There is attrition!

Overall, and in the same year, 80.1 percent of Bachelor’s degrees in engineering went to men; 19.9 percent to women. (“Engineering by the Numbers,” By Brian L. Yoder, Ph.D.)

 

Hiring The Best People, POTUS? Legal Scholar Jonathan Turley Thinks Michael Cohen Is A Rotten Attorney

Donald Trump, Human Accomplishment, Law, Sex

Legal scholar and quintessential gentleman Jonathan Turley is seldom wrong on the intricacies of the law. He was on Fox News propounding the theory, no doubt anchored in law, that Michael Cohen, President Trump’s fix-it lawyer, has gotten his client into a lot of trouble. (Alas, Turley, like Cohen, makes spelling mistakes):

… In what is now the most famous non-disclosure agreement in history, Cohen sought to silence Daniels with a $130,000 payment just days before the election. He drafted a flawed agreement that magnified the problems for his client. The agreement is entitled “Confidential Settlement Agreement and Mutual Release; Assignment of Copyright and Non-Disparagment (sic) Agreement.” If Cohen hoped to avoid “disparagment,” he could not have gone about it more ham-handedly. Cohen created the shield company Essential Consultants LLC and used anonymous identities for Daniels (“Peggy Peterson”) and Trump (“David Dennison”). However, Trump never signed. Instead, Cohen signed as EC LLC, which appears to be simply Cohen.

The agreement is frought [sic] with errors, including the fact that the arbitration provision seems to be an option for Trump rather than EC LCC. Nevertheless, Cohen (aka EC LLC) filed for arbitration and demanded $20 million in damages (as part of an excessive damages provision allowing for $1 million for every disclosure or even threatened disclosure by Daniels).

Now that Cohen’s counsel has confirmed the lack of knowledge or consent by Trump, the potential fallout from this agreement has become even more apparent and more serious.

… When this agreement first came to light, I wrote that Cohen would face very serious ethical questions over his conduct. First there was the fact that Cohen paid for the $130,000 out of his own pocket – a highly usual and troubling mixing of his personal and professional interests. Second, if Trump was not aware of the agreement, Cohen could be alleged to have made false representations to an opposing party as well as failing to meet his duty of conferral with a client. …

Mark Steyn, hardly a great thinker—although a thoroughly amusing one—made fun of Michael Avenatti, lawyer for porn star Stormy Daniels. Turley, who is a serious thinker on the law, says Avenatti did a superb job in representing his client.

You be the judge.

MORE: “Beware The ‘Lawyer Acquaintance’: How Fifty-Six Words May Have Just Sunk Trump and Cohen In The Daniels Litigation.“

Comments Off on Hiring The Best People, POTUS? Legal Scholar Jonathan Turley Thinks Michael Cohen Is A Rotten Attorney

Written by on

No Excuse-Making Accepted. Great Symbol Of American Maleness, Tom Brady, Makes His Son French Kiss Him

Celebrity, Critique, Etiquette, Family, Gender, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, Morality, Sex

Via NewYorkCBS: New England Patriots quarterback Tom Brady is lying face up on the massage bed when he calls his son, Jack, back to his side. The boy had gotten away with merely pecking his famous dad on the mouth. Dad, the New England Patriot’s quarterback, expected more. Poor Brady Jr. looked decidedly uncomfortable. He gives dad a protracted kiss on the mouth and wipes his mouth with his shirt. Looks like the boy knew what dad wanted. Looks like Jack Brady did not enjoy the ritual.

There’s no debate. And this is not “parent-shaming.” Tom Brady’s conduct is indisputably inappropriate. Don’t talk about the “MeToo” movement if your liberalism has led you to eroticize your child and then justify it.


Tom Brady French-kissing his 11-year-old son

Comments Off on No Excuse-Making Accepted. Great Symbol Of American Maleness, Tom Brady, Makes His Son French Kiss Him

Written by on

NEW COLUMN: Military Disasters: Gender Fluidity And Chicks In Camo

Cultural Marxism, Government, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, libertarianism, Military, Paleolibertarianism, Sex

THE NEW COLUMN,  colorfully titled by the editor, is “Military Disasters: Gender Fluidity and Chicks in Camo” (“army men don’t want “mate who suddenly grows breasts and bats eyelashes”).

Now on WND, it revisits the reversed ban on LGBTQ in the military. Among all else, it challenges the idea that everyone is eligible to serve in government institutions, an idea that runs counter to the libertarian imperative to contain government growth and reach.

(Of course, tele-Judge Andrew Napolitano, a lite, left-libertarian, has celebrated the freighting of men with females in combat as a great step toward the ideal of “judging individuals based on their merits and not their group.”)

An excerpt:

President Trump’s July 26th LGBTQ directive, signaling his intention to ban the politicized transgender production from the theater of war, has been overturned.

Pursuant to a complaint filed by US service members (ISIS was tickled pink), a federal judge, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, blocked the enforcement of the president’s ban. “The reasons given for the ban do not appear to be supported by any facts,” she ruled.

Judge KK was not alone. Predictably, the Joint Chiefs of Staff had pooh-poohed the president, too.

Why “predictably”? Whether Republicans like it or not, the military is government; it works like government; is financed like government, and is marred by the same inherent malignancies of government. Like all government-run divisions and departments, the US military is manacled by multiculturalism, feminism and all manner of outré sexual politics, affirmative action, and political correctness that kills.

LGBTQ is a political program why? Central to the concept of “Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer and Questioning” in the military is the idea of a group whose members have chosen to identify not as Private X or Private Z, but as a party to a political fraternity that promises and delivers an aggressive, noisy, sexual identity politics.

Evangelizing for the cause is implicit in the introduction of this political production into the military. Ditto payment for drastic elective medical procedures and the attendant hormonal maintenance.

In other words, LGBTQ in the military isn’t about enhancing a fighting force, it’s about introducing another state-driven reformation program. Egalitarian access here aims, inadvertently (as always), to grow an arm of government and, at the same time, “re-educate” the country.

Contra Judge Kollar-Kotelly, LGBTQ in the military is but another “Draconian social policy [enforced] without showing any interest in—and in many cases actively suppressing—good-faith information about how those policies [are] playing out at ground level,” in the prescient words of Stephanie Gutmann, author of “The Kinder, Gentler Military: Can America’s Gender-Neutral Fighting Force Still Win Wars?” …

… READ THE REST. “Military Disasters: Gender Fluidity and Chicks in Camo” is now on WND.com.