Women

People For the American Way Action Fund Endorses Lucy Flores for Nevada Lieutenant Governor

Today People For the American Way Action Fund announced its endorsement of Nevada State Assemblywoman Lucy Flores for Lieutenant Governor.

Flores, one of the first Latinas to serve in the Nevada legislature, rose rapidly into leadership. By 2013, she was already serving as Assistant Majority Whip, and she now serves as vice chair of the Nevada Hispanic Legislative Caucus.

“Lucy Flores is exactly the kind of young, dynamic, progressive leader that Nevada needs,” said PFAW Political Director Randy Borntrager. “Her story of overcoming adversity puts her in a unique position to fight for women’s rights and minority rights from a place of personal experience. I am confident she will continue to fight for equal protection under the law for all Nevadans.”

The daughter of Mexican immigrants, Flores grew up as one of 13 siblings and struggled as a teenager, ultimately dropping out of high school. But with encouragement and support, Flores put her troubled years behind her, received a GED, and became the first in her family to go to college. She earned a bachelor’s degree from the University of Southern California and later a law degree from the William S. Boyd School of Law at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

In 2008, Flores served on the Nevada Commission on Minority Affairs, where she was an advocate for the renewal of the state’s ombudsman for minority consumer affairs, ensuring equal protection under Nevada’s consumer protection laws. In the legislature, she passed landmark legislation improving high school testing, protecting consumers from predatory unauthorized practice of law, and protecting survivors of domestic violence from their abusers.

People For the American Way Action Fund is proud to support Flores’ quest to “bring a vision and voice to Nevada that hasn’t been heard before.”  Learn more about her campaign for Lieutenant Governor at http://www.lucyflores.com.

###

Beck: #YesAllWomen Is Nothing But 'Good Old Fashioned Man-Bashing'

In the wake of the murder spree carried out by Elliot Rodger, driven by his deeply and viciously misogynistic views, a #YesAllWomen hashtag was started on Twitter to highlight the fact that society largely turns a blind eye to the fact that women experience various forms of harassment, threats, and discrimination on a regular basis.

Glenn Beck, shockingly, was not particularly moved by the effort as he mockingly read some of the tweets on his television program last night and called it nothing more than "a chance for some good, old fashioned man-bashing":

Barton: Not Allowing Women To Vote Was Designed 'To Keep The Family Together'

On today's episode of "WallBuilders Live," David Barton explained that women were not given the right to vote when the Constitution was written because the Founding Fathers were trying to protect the institution of the family by giving every "family" a right to vote through the male head of the household.

Responding to a question from a listener who argued that the Founding Fathers denied women the right to vote not out of sexism but rather based on the biblical principle that a house divided against itself cannot stand, Barton said that this interpretation was exactly right because not allowing women to vote was designed "to keep the family together":

The family was the first and fundamental unit of all government. Actually, you have individual self government first, then you have family government second, you have civil government third, and have church government fourth.  Those are the four levels of government in the order they are given in the Bible.

So family government precedes civil government and you watch that as colonists came to America, they voted by families. You look at the Pilgrims, when they finally moved away from socialism and moved toward the free enterprise system, they called the families together and gave families plots of land. Private property given to the families. And so that's the way things work.

And you have to remember back then, husband and wife, I mean the two were considered one. That is the biblical precept. That is the way they looked at them in the civil community. That is a family that is voting and so the head of the family is traditionally considered to be the husband and even biblically still continues to be so ...

Now, as we've moved away from the family unit - you need to be independent from the family, don't be chained down and be a mother and don't be chained down and be a father and don't be chained down to your parents, you know, we've moved into more of a family anarchy kind of thing, the 'Modern Family' kind of portrayal - that understanding has gone away.

Clearly, what [the listener] has asked is a brilliant question because it does reveal that the bigotry we're told they held back then, they didn't hold and what they did was they put the family unit higher than the government unit and they tried to work hard to keep the family together. And, as we can show in two or three hundred studies since then, the more you weaken the family, the more it hurts the entire culture and society.

So they had a strong culture, a strong society and it was based on a strong family to preceded government and they crafted their policies to protect a strong family.

Schlafly: Increase The Pay Gap So Women Will Have Better Opportunities To Find A Husband

Phyllis Schlafly has never been a big fan of feminism or of efforts to promote equality between men and women in general. Schlafly is, after all, notorious for her stated belief that it is impossible for a husband to ever rape his wife because "when you get married you have consented to sex."

Given this sort of outlook, it is not surprising that Schlafly opposes things like the Paycheck Fairness Act and efforts to close the gender pay gap, arguing in an op-ed published in The Christian Post that closing the pay gap will actually harm women.

As Schlafly sees it, women want to marry a man who makes more money than they do.  As such, if women and men make the same amount, then women will be less likely to get married because they will be "unable to find what they regard as a suitable mate."

The solution, obviously, is to increase the pay gap so that men will earn more than women so that women, in turn, will have a better opportunity to find husbands:

Another fact is the influence of hypergamy, which means that women typically choose a mate (husband or boyfriend) who earns more than she does. Men don't have the same preference for a higher-earning mate.

While women prefer to HAVE a higher-earning partner, men generally prefer to BE the higher-earning partner in a relationship. This simple but profound difference between the sexes has powerful consequences for the so-called pay gap.

Suppose the pay gap between men and women were magically eliminated. If that happened, simple arithmetic suggests that half of women would be unable to find what they regard as a suitable mate.

Obviously, I'm not saying women won't date or marry a lower-earning men, only that they probably prefer not to. If a higher-earning man is not available, many women are more likely not to marry at all.

...

The best way to improve economic prospects for women is to improve job prospects for the men in their lives, even if that means increasing the so-called pay gap.

How Money in Politics Undermines Diversity in Elected Office

During a speech to a packed audience at the University of Washington on Monday, Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor was asked by a student what problems need to be fixed in order to see more women and people of color in government. 

Sotomayor’s answer, as reported by The Seattle Times, was simple: “Money.”

“Money,” Sotomayor said to laughter. “No, seriously. Look at what’s happening in politics. What’s talking the loudest is money.” For more minorities and women to gain more of a foothold in government decisions, “we’re going to have to work the political system at the highest level,” she said.

Justice Sotomayor is right. Today our country is represented by leaders who, as a whole, look little like the electorate they are supposed to represent and serve. Women are a majority of the population, and yet only make up 20% of the Senate and 18% of the House, putting us 83rd in the world for women’s political representation. We have only one openly LGBTQ person and only a handful of people of color in the US Senate – in 2012 there were no African Americans. This picture is not only problematic in itself, but it also has broad implications for policy outcomes.

It’s true that we have also seen some promising developments in political representation in recent years. The 113th Congress is the most diverse in history, with a record number of women and minorities elected, as well as a number of firsts. As the policy director for the Young Elected Officials Network, I am heartened by the changing faces of leadership at all levels of government, and what this means for our country both symbolically and substantively. But, like Justice Sotomayor, I’m also concerned that our country’s money in politics problem is standing in the way of further progress.

Much has been said lately about the impact of money in politics on political representation. At The Atlantic’s Shriver Report summit on women and poverty in January, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi noted,

If you reduce the role of money in politics and increase the level of civility in debate, more women will run for office… We say to women, we want you to go raise 12 million dollars, and by the way, subject yourself to 10 million dollars in negative publicity.

The influence of money in politics not only fuels corruption and the elevation of special and powerful interests, but it exacerbates the imbalance of power as a whole in our country by creating barriers to political representation for communities who are already marginalized. It perpetuates a system where the country is led by people who don’t understand the daily lived and embodied experiences of their constituents.

On Capitol Hill, we see the effects of this imbalance play out each day. From thwarted gun violence prevention efforts to legislation attacking women’s reproductive health voted on by committees and panels made up entirely of men, we continue to have elected leaders who side against the demonstrated wishes of its voters and with the moneyed interests.

We must pursue reforms that transform our electoral processes, even the playing field for all candidates, and restore the power to the people by reducing the outsized influence of big money and protecting the rights of voters. All indications show that we get better results for everyone when there’s diversity in governing bodies.

It’s both common sense, and a matter of basic human rights.

PFAW Foundation

Fischer: Feminists Have A 'Fundamental Level Of Insecurity' About Their Own Femininity

It is no surprise that Bryan Fischer is not much of a fan of the "Ban Bossy" campaign, saying on his radio broadcast today that the problem with feminists is that they want to be like men because they are insecure about their own femininity and therefore refuse to acquiesce to the role prescribed for them by God in the Bible.

Feminists, Fischer said, have "some kind of fundamental level of insecurity about their own nature, about their femininity, some kind of insecurity about being a woman."

"We don't need women trying to be like men," he added. "We need more women whose ambition in life is to be a woman":

West: 'The Left Tries To Win The Women's Vote By Talking From The Waist Down'

On Friday, Allen West spoke with Steve Malzberg where he defended Mike Huckabee's recent comment by declaring that "the Left tries to win the women's vote by talking from the waist down" while Republicans seek to reach the hearts and minds of female voters.

Asserting that Democrats want the government to be "the sugar daddy" and replace men, West said Democrats have been "caught guilty as always" and are responding by attacking Huckabee. He then went on to claim that the Left remains utterly silent when women like Malala Yousafzai are abused and attacked by the Taliban before declaring that "I'm going to be very blunt: the Left tries to win the women's vote by talking from the waist down":

Fischer: Contraception Has Left Women Abused And Misused

On his broadcast on Friday, Bryan Fischer took calls from female listeners in an effort to get their perspective on Mike Huckabee's comment that Democrats are insulting women by requiring contraception coverage because they think women "can't control their libido."

Fischer, not surprisingly, defended Huckabee's point, adding that the invention of contraception has been nothing but a disaster for women because it "removed procreation from the sex act," thus freeing up men to have sex with women without having to worry about consequences and ultimately meaning that "he has no reason to commit himself to her."

As such, Fischer declared, "the guy is the one that gets most of the benefits out of this and the woman is the one who is left abused and misused, her body surgically invaded to remove a life in her, so it hasn't work out to be sexually liberating for women at all, as far as I can see":

Fischer: Women Were Designed To Be Ruled Over and Focus Their Energy on Making a Home for Their Children & Husband

On today's radio program, Bryan Fischer reacted to new research finding that women are either the sole or primary source of income in 40% of homes ... and his reaction was exactly what you'd expect from sexist, borderline theocrat as he cited the Bible to assert that women were designed to be ruled over by their husbands and "to focus her energies ... on making a home for her children and for her husband."

Fischer was especially alarmed by the prospect that working women might earn more than their husbands because it is an unhealthy dynamic because it undermines "his sense of worth as a male":

Beck: Society Is Going to Hell and the National Organization for Women is to Blame

On his radio program today, Glenn Beck spent a bit of time discussing the case of Kermit Gosnell and the media's supposed refusal to adequately cover the story.  Despite that fact that until last week, Beck's The Blaze had barely mentioned the story, Beck blamed the media for failing to cover it and announced that he was going to delve into it in potentially graphic detail on tonight's television program.

In Beck's view, the Gosnell case and "almost everything that is going on in our society, I think, was hastened by the National Organization of Women" [sic] because the organization convinced women that they were no different than men. 

And when that happens, "society goes to hell" because men stop respecting women "and society starts to careen out of control":

Fischer: Obama Is Deliberately Destroying the Military by Allowing Women in Combat

As Brian just demonstrated, the Religious Right is not at all pleased about the Pentagon's decision to allow women to serve in combat and that, of course, includes Bryan Fischer, who declared on his radio program today that the change is part of a deliberate effort on the part of President Obama to destroy the military.

As Fischer sees it, Obama "detests the military" because he views it as tool that "white colonial powers" use to oppress nations around the globe.  In fact, Obama is so imbued with hatred of America's fundamental "white supremacy [and] white racism," Fischer believes, that he is "systematically going about destroying the military" by allowing women to serve in combat:

Beck: Letting Women Serve in Combat Is 'the Dumbest Idea I've Ever Heard'

Glenn Beck is none-too-pleased about the the Pentagon's decision to lift the ban on women serving in front-line combat positions, calling it "the dumbest idea I've ever heard" because the purpose of the military is to kill and intimidate people ... and no enemy is going to be intimidated "because we have a female Eskimo Hispanic dwarf cross-dresser and some handicapable, transgendered breast cancer survivor as a soldier on the front line":

Buehner: Woman Fired for Being 'Irresistible' Should Have Been 'Working For Her Husband'

On yesterday’s Generations Radio, Kevin Swanson and Dave Buehner took on the recent case in which the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that a dentist was justified in firing an assistant whom he found “irresistible.” Swanson and Buehner, who agreed with the court’s decision, used the case as a jumping-off point for a discussion of the woes of modern workplaces that throw men together with women to whom they are not married. Such arrangements, Buehner fretted, are “pseudo-marriages.” Swanson feared that they come dangerously close to “polygamy”:

Swanson: This is not unusual, unfortunately, and it certainly is going to happen when you have a decrease in family economies. It’s one reason why we push the family economic vision, because the family economy is pretty much the way God set things up. The man and the woman come together not just for sexual union but also to be helpmeets and dominion-takers together as a team, as a lean, mean team in the dominion effort. That’s the way it was designed in the garden when the woman came to the man as the helpmeet for the man in the dominion task.

Buehner: And Kevin, I think that’s key. What we have in some of these business workplaces is a woman who’s not the wife being the helper or the helpmeet of the man and she has taken on the role of the helper…

Swanson: …for the man.

Buehner: And the only thing that’s missing in that relationship is the sexual consummation.

Swanson: Or the polygamy.

Buehner: Right. So remember, when God placed Adam in the garden, he gave him a mandate. He said you need a helper. He told Adam to go out and take some dominion, Adam named the animals, He said, ‘Yeah, this is really hard, you’re gonna need yourself a helper.” So He made Eve for him. It does not say that Eve was created because Adam needed to have a sexual outlet, it was created because Adam needed a helper. Now we take a man and we give him a helper out in the marketplace. He’s in a pseudo-marriage.

Swanson: And yeah, it can move in that direction pretty quickly.

The root cause of these inappropriate workplace relationships, Swanson and Buehner conclude, is an economic system built by “universities and colleges and political systems and corporate systems” in which women work outside the family unit. The fired dental assistant, Buehner contends, “would have been better off working for her husband.”

Swanson: Friends, you gotta understand that we have tremendous socio-economic forces that have been set up by systems that want to systematically destroy the integrity of the family life and the marriage in the 20th century and the 21st century. This is what you’re up against. I just want people to understand that as we are trying to reconfigure entire socio-economic systems by way of our familyeconomics.com and by our huge conferences we are sponsoring around the country to this year, we are going up against this socio-economic structure that has been put in place by universities and colleges and political systems and corporate systems, etcetera, etcetera, that makes it extremely difficult for the family to survive in the 21st century.

Buehner: In this dentist case situation, the dentist was married, his wife was working in the office with him. That’s great. This woman, this “irresistible” woman, she was also married and had two children. It would have been better if she was working for her husband! I mean, these are utopian ideas here, but these are Biblical ideas.
 

 

Fischer: 'Political Leadership Ought to be Reserved for the Hands of Males'

During the Republican primary, Bryan Fischer made a bit of news when he suggested that women should not be serving in positions of authority within the church or society at large, saying that God would only allow a woman (in this case, Rep. Michele Bachmann) to lead the nation in a desperate situation.

Fischer returned to the discussion of the proper role of women in society on his radio program today where he made it quite clear that he believes that "biblical lines of authority" ought to be enforced at home, in the church, and in society and that anybody who has a problem with that can take it up with Jesus. 

Fischer went on to reiterate that "masculine leadership in society over the nation" is "God's basic plan for today" and "political leadership ought to be ... reserved for the hands of males" and the fact that he is probably going to be attacked for saying so is just evidence that we can't have a reasonable discussion about this issue:

Fischer: Women Have 'Far More Influence' on the World by Staying Home and Raising Children

Last week, Bryan Fischer was making his case, yet again, that it is liberals who hate women ... especially stay at home moms. This prompted Fischer to go off on a tangent and declare that women can have more influence staying home and raising the next generation of leader than she can by "going out in the world and making her mark out there":

It's not possible to overestimate that value that stay-at-home moms, what they contribute to society by investing their full energies in the children. Where does the next generation of leaders come from? It comes from moms, and dads, who are invested in the lives of their children. So a woman can have far more influence, far more significant impact on the world by giving herself wholly to growing her children up to be responsible, mature adults than she can by going out in the world and making her mark out there.

The implication here, of course, is that "the next generation of leaders" - and every generation of leaders, for that matter -  will be men since every woman should be at home raising children instead of "going out in the world and making her mark out there."

Schlafly: 'American Women are the Most Fortunate People who Ever Lived on this Earth'

Earlier this month, we posted a report on remarks that Phyllis Schlafly delivered to a class at The Citadel entitled the "Conservative Intellectual Tradition in America" during which she warned the cadets not to date feminists.

The Citadel has finally posted the video of Schlafly's appearance, which turned out to be an excruciatingly dull hour and forty five minutes of Schlafly railing against feminism and gay marriage and abortion to a group of cadets who, based on the question and answer session toward the end, clearly did not share many of her views.

The bulk of Schlafly's remarks was dedicated to recounting the rise of the conservative movement and her efforts to defeat the Equal Rights Amendment, which she said was unnecessary because "women have had every constitutional right men have [had] since the day it was written" ... which seems like a rather odd statement considering that the Constitution had to be specifically amended to give women the right to vote.

We managed to grab a few "highlights" from Schlafly's remarks, such as we she said that feminism "is a bad word and everything they stand for is bad and destructive" because "American women are the most fortunate people who ever lived on this earth." 

She then went on to explain that the true motive of feminists is to destroy the stay-at-home mother as a model because it gives men an advantage over women in the workplace.  As Schlafly explained it, men have wives at home cooking them dinner and raising their children and the feminist "is insanely jealous of that [and since] she can't have a wife of her own, she wants to abolish the wife of the man."

Finally, she warned the cadets not to date women who are feminists, no matter how pretty they are and offered a surefire way to know whether a woman is a feminist or not - simply ask her how she feels about Phyllis Schlafly:

Schlafly Tells Male Students at The Citadel not to Date Feminists

Yesterday, Phyllis Schlafly traveled to South Carolina to speak to at The Citadel, which now offers a course entitled the "Conservative Intellectual Tradition in America."

Speaking to an all-male audience, Schlafly assured them that women don't care about the issue of contraception and warned them not to date feminists:

The recent political flap about contraception being an important issue for women is completely contrived by Democrats and the media to divert attention from abortion and other important issues, said conservative political activist Phyllis Schlafly.

“Contraception is not controversial,” she said. “The issue is not access. It’s who’s going to pay for it.”

...

Most women are concerned about issues such as jobs and religious liberty, Schlafly said, not issues being drummed up by feminists to foster support for President Barack Obama.

And feminists are working through the media and other channels because the American public no longer seems to strongly support their agenda, Schlafly said. “Feminists are having a hard time being elected because they essentially are unlikable,” she said.

Schlafly talked to a group of Citadel students about the culture of conservatism and the history of the religious right. She told the all-male group that “feminist is a bad word and everything they stand for is bad.”

And she warned them about having personal relationships with feminists. “Find out if your girlfriend is a feminist before you get too far into it,” she said. “Some of them are pretty. They don’t all look like Bella Abzug.”

Fischer: The Left Hates Women

On Monday, Bryan Fischer came to the defense of Rush Limbaugh, saying he was "lexically accurate" to call Georgetown student Sandra Fluke a "slut" on his radio program and that Limbaugh's apology was proof that we are now living under "secular Sharia."

Fischer returned to the topic on his radio program again today, during a segment in which proclaimed that all the misogyny, hatred, and vulgar attacks on women almost always comes from the Left because the Right respects women and treats them with dignity.  In fact, explained Fischer, there is really no difference between the Left and Islamic Radicals, who see women as "something less than human." 

Then, after proclaiming that the Right always treats women respectfully, he then proceeded to again attack Fluke as a someone who is "sleeping with so many guys she can’t keep track [and] doing it three times a day" while wondering if President Obama would be proud if his daughters turned out like that:

Fischer: Women are Emotionally Unfit for Combat

Last week, Rick Santorum explained that he was opposed to any plans by the Pentagon to place women in combat positions, asserting that the "types of emotions that are involved" would compromise combat effectiveness.

Santorum quickly "clarified," saying that he didn't mean that women were emotionally unsuited for serving in combat but rather that male soldiers would be protective of female soldiers and inclined to compromise the mission in order to defend them.

Not surprisingly, Bryan Fischer agrees with Santorum ... and is even willing to defend the view that Santorum himself rejected: that women are inherently emotionally unfit for combat:

But not only are women emotionally unfit for combat but also physically unfit because, as Fischer explained in his column today, "the average female soldier does not even have the arm strength to throw a grenade far enough to keep herself from getting blown up."

Fischer Laments that ‘We Have Feminized Public Policy’

The American Family Association’s Bryan Fischer was excited today to read about a Public Library of Science One Journal study that finds distinct differences in personality traits between men and women. Although the study did not explore to what extent those differences are due to nature or nurture, and other researchers are already questioning the results, Fischer took the opportunity to expound on his views on the proper role of women in the public sphere.

Two years ago, Fischer provoked national controversy when he said that the United States had “feminized” the Medal of Honor by granting it to those who who have saved lives, not just those who have killed enemy troops. Today he goes back to the theme, claiming that America is in trouble because we have “feminized public policy”:

If these differences are as profound as this study suggests, could that be the explanation for why God has designed men to be leaders in the home, leaders in the church and leaders in society? And I would suggest that the answer to that question is, “Yes.”

In fact, I’ll tell you how we have gotten into trouble in our public policy, is – I don’t know how to say this without getting myself in big trouble here – but the way we have gotten in trouble in our public policy is we have gotten away from masculine characteristics of public policy. We have feminized our public policy. Our public policy ought to be about stability, it ought to be about rule consciousness -- that’s the rule of law, the same rules apply to everybody, that’s what it ought to be about -- and vigilance. Instead, so much of our public policy has been driven by what? Sensitivity, warmth and fear. These are female characteristics, they’re feminine characteristics, they should not be the things that guide and control public policy.

So anyway, I probably just got myself in a big mess there, but again that’s not me saying it. That’s not me saying that men and women have distinct personalities and it’s inate, that’s a secular outfit, the Public Library of Science One Journal.
 

Share this page: Facebook Twitter Digg SU Digg Delicious