Tag: women

Categories
ideological culture too much government

Too Big for the Hermit Kingdom

Kim Jong Un, North Korea, women

North Koreans endure one of the least fun-​loving, most sensuality-​repressing regimes on the planet.

Normally, government officials in the Hermit Kingdom strictly enforce all manner of regimentation and self-​deprivation, at least for those being ruled. If you’re a happy citizen in North Korea, check the map. You are not in North Korea.

There may be light at the end of the tunnel, though. Kim Jong-un’s administration has put out an all-​points edict, also all-​areolas, ordering North Koreans to be on the lookout for women with un-​socialist breasts. 

The precipitant is an “ongoing show trial of two women in their 20s accused of undergoing breast enhancement operations by a backstreet surgeon.”

As you know, every socialist breast is the product of the forces of dialectical materialism, in consequence of which such bosoms, albeit firm and loyal to the supreme leader, are often Marxist-​Leninist to a fault. Normally, then, we expect collectivist cleavage to be immune to capitalist leering as well as any other such “rotten capitalist act.”

Now, however, North Korea has turned a corner in its attitude toward mammary glands. Everyone is being ordered to stare at women well below eye level, especially any that might have benefited from augmentation in violation of Das Kapital.

While this new all-​eyes alert may sound like a recreational activity for most men, it won’t be fun for the women who get dragged off to hospitals to be medically examined to determine whether their breasts are entirely for real or have been corrupted by “bourgeois customs.” 

But North Korea isn’t supposed to be fun.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Krea and Firefly

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
education and schooling First Amendment rights

Girls [sic] Sports Saved

The only thing that should have been required to save the T‑shirt? 

An apostrophe.

The T‑shirt boldly proclaimed “Save Girls* Sports.”

But matters were more complicated for students of Martin Luther King Jr. High School in Riverside, California, who wore the shirts to protest their school’s decision to let a boy claiming to be a girl join the girls’ cross-​country team.

The school sent students wearing the shirt to detention, allegedly for violating the dress code. Two of the girls who wore it said that school administrators compared the wearing of it to wearing a T‑shirt with a swastika.

Those two students and their families sued the school and school district on constitutional grounds.

Maybe it was the lawsuit, or maybe it was the show of solidarity — but something caused MLK High to cave. And hundreds of other students did show up wearing the “Save Girls Sports” T‑shirt, willing to buck the dress code or thought code, whatever it is, to support their classmates.

Somehow the school failed to place these hundreds of students in detention and has apparently dropped the detention policy.

Students at other schools in the area had also started wearing the T‑shirts.

With regard to the policy of letting boys play on girls’ sports teams, the Riverside Unified School District says that its hands are tied. “RUSD is bound to follow California law,” which requires letting students “participate in sex-​segregated” activities in a way “consistent with his or her gender identity.”

Laws are meant to be changed, however, if not through California’s legislature, then through the state’s citizen initiative process.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

 * We leave the [sic] for the title.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with Flux and Firefly 

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
The Draft

Inclusion on Compulsion

draft, registration, women

A news article over the weekend explains that certain “lawmakers” are “leading the effort to allow all Americans ages 18 to 25 to be included for registration with the Selective Service System.”

To “allow”? And “to be included”? 

The allowance and inclusion mean “at gunpoint” … by force of law: the expansion of compulsory draft registration to women, in addition to men, does not mean that lifelong dreams could finally come true. After all, military jobs are already open to women who want to serve … voluntarily.

Young men have long been required to register for a military draft upon punishment of prison for refusal … even though President Reagan, who enforced the law post-​Vietnam, acknowledged “The draft or draft registration destroys the very values our society is committed to defending.”*

After praising “the brave women who have volunteered to serve our country,” Sen. Josh Hawley (R‑Missouri) argues that “volunteering for military service is not the same as being forced into it, and no woman should be compelled to do so.”

He’s right there. 

But neither should men be so compelled. 

And Senators Ron Wyden (D‑Ore.), Cynthia Lummis (R‑Wyo.), Rand Paul (R‑Ky.), and Patrick Leahy (D‑Vt.) have introduced an amendment to the NDAA that would end draft registration completely for “all Americans.”

“The real question now,” as Jeff Jacoby wrote incisively in The Boston Globe, “is whether anyone should still be required to sign up for the draft.”

The answer is easy: No.

The All-​Volunteer Force has been a huge success. Free Americans have and will defend our freedom. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* I know about those precious values as well as about the penalty — 37 years ago today the FBI showed up at my door. And not for coffee. For my refusal to sign a draft form, I spent more than five months in a Federal Correctional Institution (and yet still go around in error from time to time).

PDF for printing

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
crime and punishment general freedom moral hazard The Draft

Draft Mom or Not?

draft, registration, selective service, woman, women, female, barbed wire,

“The biggest piece of opposition” to extending draft registration to women, former Nevada Congressman Joe Heck told The New York Times, “was, we are not going to draft our mother and daughters, our sisters and aunts to fight in hand-​to-​hand combat.”

Yet, that seems precisely what the National Commission on Military, National and Public Service, chaired by Heck, called for in its just released report, urging Congress to make our daughters sign up for the military draft and to be equally conscripted in any call-up.

Or in a new compulsory military will draftees be able to say, “No thanks, I don’t feel like engaging in hand-​to-​hand combat”?

Today, women comprise nearly 19 percent of 1.2 million active-​duty soldiers. They rightly have all combat jobs open to them — the very positions a draft has traditionally been used to fill.

So, in the name of equal rights are we forcing mom into a foxhole or not?

It seems … complicated.

“Women bring a whole host of different perspectives, different experiences,” offered Debra Wada, a commission member and former assistant secretary for the Army. 

Since when does the military conscript people for their “perspective”?

“[B]eing drafted does not necessarily mean serving in combat,” The Times paraphrased Wada. “In a time of national crisis, the government could draft people to a variety of positions, from clerical work to cybersecurity.”

This doesn’t seem to be about actual equality of service —or equality of risk — at all, but instead about a bigger pool of possible forced labor.

“If the threat is to our very existence,” Wada rhetorically inquired, “wouldn’t you want women as part of that group?”

Yes! Certainly.

Of course. 

But as volunteers, not as conscripts — and the same for men. 

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

draft, registration, selective service, woman, women, female, barbed wire,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts

Categories
Accountability crime and punishment general freedom The Draft

A Policy Misadventure

draft registration, women, female, soldier, selective service, draft,

The National Commission on Military, National and Public Service released its report today, advocating that Congress should force our daughters to register for the military draft.

“The commission recommended that the United States keep a draft option in place,” explains The New York Times. Commission chair and former Nevada Congressman Joe Heck called it a “low-​cost insurance policy against an existential national security threat.” 

But that flies in the face of former Selective Service Commissioner Bernard Rostker’s testimony: “there is no need to continue to register people for a draft that will not come; no need to fight the battle over registering women, and no military need to retain the MSSA [Military Selective Service Act].”

And speaking of “an existential national security threat,” the scenario Heck put forth at one hearing was a simultaneous invasion from both Canada and Mexico.

Puh-​leeze. 

“This is a necessary and fair step,” states the 255-​page report, according to Politico, “making it possible to draw on the talent of a unified Nation in a time of national emergency.” 

It has always been possible to draw on the talents of the American people — both men and women. Just not to draft folks against their will.

Legitimate arguments for fairness and equality* must not obscure what we are talking about: A step closer to using force to fill the military’s ranks.

There is only one reason for a military draft: the inability of a nation to persuade citizens to voluntarily defend their country. Yet, as I told the commission last year, never have Americans failed to rise to their country’s defense. 

Conversely, too often our “leaders” have substituted foreign misadventures for actual national defense.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

* More soon on the sort of “equality” being envisioned in the next military draft. 

PDF for printing

draft registration, women, female, soldier, selective service, draft,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts


Categories
ideological culture political challengers

Mistaken Misogyny

Tulsi Gabbard, shadow, silhouette, misogyny,

Are Democratic Party women … misogynists?

Last week, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren dropped out of the presidential race after coming in third in her home state and faring no better in any of the first 18 state primaries and caucuses.

“Warren seemed to be the ideal candidate,” informed Erin Templeton, a Dean at Converse College, in The Guardian, but, as the headline explained, “there was only one problem … she was a woman.” 

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi attributed “a certain element of misogyny” to the senator’s defeat.

“For the second time in four years, an exceptionally qualified female candidate lost to her male counterparts — some objectively far less qualified,” argued Ella Nilsen and Li Zhou at Vox.

“Sexism was a big factor in Warren’s loss,” they asserted, concluding: “America apparently isn’t ready for a woman president — at least not yet.”

Yet, it was Democrats, not all Americans, who voted for two white men instead of her. And women constitute a clear majority of Democratic voters.

“She’s female,” Annie Linskey and Amy Wang chorused in The Washington Post, identifying the factor “many believe contributed significantly to her loss.”

Noting that Warren’s “departure came just days after another prominent female senator, Amy Klobuchar, dropped out,” they neglected to discuss why Klobuchar endorsed former Vice-​President Joe Biden, a man, and not her homogametic comrade, Senator Warren.

The biggest problem with doling out verbal recriminations against people who did not vote for Warren? 

If everything is sexism, nothing is sexism.

Which only makes it harder to fight actual sexism … as the Democratic National Committee changes the rules to keep the only remaining woman in the race, Hawaii Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, off the debate stage.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Tulsi Gabbard, shadow, silhouette, misogyny,

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts


Categories
folly ideological culture media and media people Popular

Inclusivity Not Included

women, woman, march, inclusion, in group, out group

The 3rd annual Woman’s March strolled by over the weekend — a tiny fraction of its former self. 

Two years ago, close to a million protesters converged on Washington, D.C., while this year’s event “appeared to attract only thousands,” The Washington Post reported, “mirroring lower turnout at marches … across the country.”

“[A] movement that once bragged about its inclusivity,” explained a separate news analysis, “has been roiled by reports of battles over diversity, hate speech and branding.”

In addition to squabbles over corporate ownership of the very name of the “Women’s March,” the leaders of the main organization have been accused of anti-​Semitism. “Board members Linda Sarsour, Carmen Perez and Women’s March, Inc., co-​president Tamika Mallory, have publicly affiliated with and praised anti-​Semitic Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan,” notes the Capital Research Center’s Influence Watch website.

March founder Teresa Shook called on them to resign, charging “they have allowed anti-​Semitism, anti-​LBGTQIA sentiment and hateful, racist rhetoric to become a part of the platform …” The Democratic National Committee and a number of progressive groups have withdrawn their support. 

But the “inclusivity” was always fake. As a “women’s” march, it started out excluding half the population. Nothing wrong with women having events or organizations that focus on issues of particular interest to females; it’s just not inclusive.

And let’s not ignore that pro-​life women were specifically booted from participating in the original 2017 event. 

“Is the Women’s March more inclusive this year?” a USA Today article asked before last year’s pink-​hatted festivities. 

Apparently not. This year, everyone was excluded fromthe Eureka Women’s March — cancelled because those hoping to participate were “overwhelmingly white.”

With all this inclusion, no wonder we are so divided.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

women, woman, march, inclusion, in group, out group

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
See recent popular posts


Categories
crime and punishment general freedom moral hazard national politics & policies Popular The Draft

Daughter Draft

draft, registration, conscription, women, war

“A man’s gotta do what a man’s gotta do.” 

For years, the Selective Service System — the friendly folks who bring us the military draft — used the above slogan to portray registering for the draft as a rite of manhood. 

If macho draft registration is now expanded to women, perhaps the slogan will change to: “Men and women have to do what they’re told — equally.” That’s where the issue is headed: to equality. Equality before the law is important, sure — but we don’t want equal servitude. Equal freedom is better.

“It appears that, for the most part, expanding registration for the draft to include women would enhance further the benefits presently associated with the Selective Service System,” stated a Pentagon report to Congress recommending the mandatory registration of women.

What benefits are those?

Spending $25 million each year on a Washington bureaucracy to keep a woefully inaccurate and incomplete list of young people between 18 and 25 years of age for a possible future military draft doesn’t hold any benefit for me. 

If a draft were conducted, many observers believe the Selective Service would throw away its coerced list of young people (gathered by threatening and punishing and imprisoning young people*) and simply purchase a list or lists on the open list market.

But there is no need for conscription. Never has been. Citizens in these United States have always stepped forward. Today, the All Volunteer Force is the best military in the world. 

Most of all, conscription is anathema to the idea of individual liberty. We can and will defend ourselves, but without registering or forcing our daughters into the military. 

Or our sons. 

Ending registration, forswearing conscription, that’s equal freedom.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob. 

 

* I know, I was one of those prosecuted back in the 1980s. 

 

Additional Reading:

Common Sense: For Genderless Freedom

Common Sense: Needless List?

Townhall: Obama’s New Rite

Common Sense: Equal or Free?

Common Sense: Junk the Law

Townhall: Draft the Congress and Leave My Kid Alone

Townhall: Americans Gung-​Ho to Draft Congress

PDF for printing

 

Categories
folly ideological culture media and media people national politics & policies

A Special Place in Heck?

Hillary Clinton, Trump voters, Trump, women, woman, vote, election, democracy,

Former First Lady scolds women for not voting … for a former First Lady.

Yes, “Michelle Obama,” the BBC headlined last week, “scolds female Trump voters.”

Need you ask why? You probably have already guessed.

“Any woman who voted against Hillary Clinton voted against their own voice,” Mrs. Obama remarked at a Boston conference.

Though a majority of women who voted cast their ballots for Mrs. Clinton, a slightly smaller majority of white women voted for Donald Trump.

And to those women who did not vote for Hillary? “Well, to me that just says, you don’t like your voice.”

The idea that one woman candidate can serve as “the voice” for all women is not merely absurd. It is sexist. But it is something that this most recent First Lady shares with the former First Lady who just lost a major election. Yes, Hillary Clinton has said much the same kind of thing. And Madeline Albright, Secretary of State under Clinton’s husband’s command, famously argued “there is a special place in hell” for women who refuse to toe the line and vote Clinton II.

Heck, there is a special place for women who think, appraise and choose against social pressure: America. Here people matter as individuals, as persons, not as members of their race, religion, sex, or … political party.

But the arrogance of these women leaders shows no understanding of effrontery. “You like the thing you’re told to like,” Mrs. Obama belittled female Trump voters.

Truth is: women were repeatedly told to like Hillary for president. But they refused to do as they were told, which is why Mrs. Clinton and Mrs. Obama are attacking them.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

 

Categories
folly ideological culture nannyism

The Problem of No Problem

A scientist has a problem: no problem. 

Sounds like a Zen riddle, but it’s really about the riddle of victimhood-worship. 

Emily Yoffe writes an advice column called Dear Prudence. A female reader reported a problem pertaining to workplace bias against women. Although she works in a “very masculine scientific field … I have never really suffered from sexism.” 

Hmmm. Why not? “Maybe I’m just awesome at playing the man’s game (or in denial and don’t have an eye for sexism?).” 

It is probably not denial. It is pretty easy to detect abusive treatment when you’re on the receiving end and not rationalizing it away. The bigger problem, though, is that “even quite reasonable and pleasant women” of her acquaintance get nasty when she can’t “contribute to their list of crimes committed by the patriarchy.” 

What to do? She dislikes unpleasantness, but doesn’t want to lie. 

One thing to do is recognize it’s not up to you to make unreasonable people reasonable. When no discussion is possible, take your conversation elsewhere. I also advise skipping gratuitous self-doubt.

Happily, Ms. Prudence and I are on the same wavelength. 

“My general advice,” she writes, “is that it’s best not to engage with unpleasant people.… But if you feel like it, you can also counterpunch by saying something like, ‘It’s funny, but the only people who try to bully me are women who aren’t in my profession.’ ”

Commonsensical minds think alike, I guess. Ask me for advice any time.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.