Sunday, October 30, 2011

Girl Scouts Reject Boy Who Likes Girl Things

This CNN story is mostly about a boy who wants to join the Girl Scouts. But it is much more than that. Bobby Montoya's situation opens the door to an entire discussion about gender identity and how to manage it, both your own and other people's.

The story is easily summarized. Bobby is a seven-year-old who has a boy's body but thinks of himself as a girl. He likes girl things, likes his hair long, likes to dress like a girl and be treated as one. And he wanted to go to Girl Scouts but they wouldn't let him join.
A leader said he could not join because of his "boy parts," [ Bobby's mother, Felisha ] Archuleta told CNN affiliate 9News.

The Girl Scouts of Colorado has since said it was an "inclusive" organization and "if a child lives life as a girl" he or she is welcome to join. "When a family requests membership for their daughter, we do not require proof of gender, we respect the decisions of families."

Archuleta doesn't label her son, who has been bullied and taunted. "I consider Bobby to be born in the wrong body."
The Colorado case has brought to light questions about labels and the rapidly evolving discussion about gender non-conforming children. Parents urged to support, safeguard children as they explore gender

I think that's an unfortunate title. This kid is not "exploring gender," he just wants to do what the other girls do. And you see our language is not accepting the situation well either, I am using masculine pronouns because the English language makes you choose and Bobby is presented in this story as a boy. It is not a story of exploration, it does not appear that Bobby is exploring anything, he knows what he is and that's that.

It seems very likely that at some point Bobby will change his name and formally transition his identity, so that rather than being "a boy who thinks he's a girl" he can be, simply, "a girl." That has apparently not happened yet.

This is an odd piece of reporting that starts with this human interest feature and quickly shoots off on important tangents. They even quote Regina Griggs from PFOX.

The question here is gender nonconformity. Most people cluster around the ends of the gender dichotomy, their self-presentation and their physical characteristics are in agreement, yet at the same time almost everyone deviates in some way. You remember the football player who enjoyed knitting, the jazz musician who followed the soap operas, very few of us conform a hundred percent to the stereotypes of male and female gender. Some small proportion of people identify themselves as the gender opposite their physical characteristics, and let's not forget that there are very many kinds of intersex conditions where physical characteristics are not entirely unambiguous.
The terms sex and gender are often used interchangeably, particularly on official forms, but sociologists say they are not the same thing.

Sex refers to biological and physiological characteristics that define men and women. Gender refers to socially constructed roles and behaviors society considers appropriate for men and women.

Gender identity and sexual orientation also are different. Sexual orientation refers to an individual's enduring physical, romantic, and/or emotional attraction to another person, whereas gender identity refers to one's internal sense of being male, female, or something else, according to the American Psychological Association.

Transgender children and adults are "people who are being assigned one gender but affirm that they are the other," said Diane Ehrensaft, a San Francisco Bay Area developmental and clinical psychologist and author of "Gender Born, Gender Made."

In the case of a kid like Bobby, it is important to point out that if there is a problem it is a problem with other people. Bobby seems comfortable being a girl, but the kids at school are apparently not cool with it, and I am sure some readers will object that his parents should force him in a more masculine direction. Gender roles may be socially defined but an individual's sense of their own gender is innate, and problems arise in a social context, when a person presents themselves as they are and violates others' expectations of what they should be.

The discussion comes down to one thing. We have a choice to make regarding the people around us. We can accept them as they are, or we can try to change them so they meet our expectations. The issue is not whether Bobby "should" be a boy or a girl, he already knows what he is, the problem is going to be seen in how other people deal with him.
Felisha Archuleta, who has two older children, said Bobby is still interested in joining the Girl Scouts, but not the same unit he first came in contact with.

The Girl Scouts of Colorado is taking such situations "on a case by case basis," said spokesperson Rachelle Trujillo. "This is a pretty new thing for us."

"I have absolutely heard of many situations of transgender kids who are absolutely living as a girl. Girl Scouts shouldn't be any different for them," she said.

Archuleta said her son doesn't need counseling and does not the dress the way he does because of his environment.

"I know it's going to be a really hard road for Bobby," Archuleta said. "I feel if we are there for him, we will get through it together."

There is a concise video at this link and a long story. The Girl Scout official they interview seems to have insight and empathy for Bobby's situation, and I have the feeling they will end up evolving a policy that is inclusive and kind. Gender identity is not a topic that most of us have ever given much thought to, we are what we are and society has fairly clear ways of treating male and female individuals. Everyone has a gender identity, it is not well understood but it is not hard to respect those who feel themselves to be different from the stereotype.

37 Comments:

Anonymous Yay! said...

"...today, the Girl Scouts of Colorado said it made a mistake when it rejected Bobby’s application to join.

The Girl Scouts issued a statement to KUSA saying that a worker unfamiliar with the group's policies gave Bobby’s family wrong information.

In a statement, the group said: 'If a child identifies as a girl and the child's family presents her as a girl, Girl Scouts of Colorado welcomes her as a Girl Scout.

'In this case, an associate delivering our program was not aware of our approach. She contacted her supervisor, who immediately began working with the family to get the child involved and supported in Girl Scouts. We are accelerating our support systems and training so that we're better able to serve all girls, families and volunteers.'

The organization said requests for support of transgender kids have grown, and Girl Scouts of Colorado is working to support the children, their families and the volunteers who serve them."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2053852/Bobby-Montoya-Colorado-Girl-Scouts-say-yes-BOY-wants-join-them.html#ixzz1cIQSXyvc

October 30, 2011 3:48 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

broken promise alert:

"WASHINGTON -- The White House has rejected several marijuana legalization petitions, one of which called on the federal government to stop interfering with state marijuana legalization efforts.

"As a former police chief, I recognize we are not going to arrest our way out of the problem," wrote Gil Kerlikowske, director of the Office of National Drug Control Policy, in a statement released late on Friday. "We also recognize that legalizing marijuana would not provide the answer to any of the health, social, youth education, criminal justice, and community quality of life challenges associated with drug use."

The statement came in response to a petition submitted by retired Baltimore narcotics officer Neill Franklin as part of the White House's "We The People" project, an effort to allow ordinary Americans to gain the attention of policymakers through an online portal at the White House website. Any petition garnering 5,000 signatures within 30 days of submission is guaranteed a response from the White House; Franklin's petition received more than 17,000.

"It's maddening that the administration wants to continue failed prohibition polices that do nothing to reduce drug use and succeed only in funneling billions of dollars into the pockets of the cartels and gangs that control the illegal market," said Franklin, who serves as executive director of advocacy group Law Enforcement Against Prohibition, in a statement released Saturday.

Franklin's petition comes as federal prosecutors have escalated enforcement actions against medical marijuana dispensary owners in California, vowing to shutter state-licensed businesses and threatening landlords with property seizures for violating federal drug laws. Franklin has also called on the president to remember his campaign promise not to waste government resources interfering with state-regulated marijuana dispensaries.

The White House's rejection statement was directed at seven other marijuana-related petitions, which together garnered more than 150,000 signatures. One such petition, which called for marijuana to be regulated in a manner similar to alcohol, received almost 75,000 signatures."

of course, the White House has a TTF-style rationale:

"When the President took office, he directed all of his policymakers to develop policies based on science and research, not ideology or politics. So our concern about marijuana is based on what the science tells us about the drug's effects.

According to scientists at the National Institutes of Health -- the world's largest source of drug abuse research -- marijuana use is associated with addiction, respiratory disease, and cognitive impairment."

oh, OK

it's just science

so was Frankenstein and the MCPS sex ed curriculum

November 01, 2011 8:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon, you won't find anybody in TTF advocating this kind of totalitarian law enforcement. It might be okay to tell students that marijuana can cause cognitive impairment (duh, it's called "being high"), but if you look back through this web site you will see that TTF consistently stands in favor of individual liberty. We do not support the freedom of jerks to harass and intimidate those who are different from them, and the reason for that is that those who are different deserve to have liberty, too.

November 01, 2011 8:25 AM  
Anonymous svelte_brunette said...

Nice post Jim. It’s great to see the Girl Scouts trying to be proactive on this one. It is yet another reason to buy more Thin Mints. I think they are on a mission to make me fat! ;)

As for the legalization of marijuana, I think there are a number of cases that can be made for that – including several successful examples in Europe. (Oh those socialists again!!) We could certainly use the tax revenue. (I know, I know, you can’t tax businesses and stifle the economy, but that’s the way I swing.)

Since I have never tried marijuana or other illegal drugs, and given the fact that I have no desire to, I see no reason to get my knickers in a twist over the fact that they haven’t been legalized yet. The folks I hang out with don’t appear that interested in legalizing marijuana either; they’re too busy trying to make sure they get or keep a job after or through transition.

Have a nice day,

Cynthia

November 01, 2011 10:25 AM  
Blogger Theresa said...

Off topic.
But I remember how badly I was ridiculed on this blog for insisting that I teach my children they can do whatever they decide they want to do....

this is a quote from Hillary Clinton, speaking about her mother...(who died yesterday, though this quote is older)


"I owe it to my mother, who never got a chance to go to college, who had a very difficult childhood, but who gave me a belief that I could do whatever I set my mind," she said.

so apparently that is not just a Theresa belief. and dare I point out, look what Hillary achieved.


Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/11/01/family-hillary-clintons-mother-dies-at-2/?test=latestnews#ixzz1cTSMLJLo

November 01, 2011 1:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

It's a good quote, Theresa, and I'm glad you feel that way. It was only the generation before ours when women were expected to be subservient to men, they were expected to stay home and raise children. Now that there is a movement to empower women, gender roles are shifting to make way. I am glad to hear that you support this social revolution.

November 01, 2011 1:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Anon, you won't find anybody in TTF advocating this kind of totalitarian law enforcement"

you're kidding, right?

how about if they don't think there is scientific evidence that carbon emissions account for global warming and, btw, there isn't?

TTFers favor all kinds of rules to control our carbon emissions and say it is based on science

how about if a kid and their parents don't think a kid should get an HPV vaccine?

TTFers favor laws making it mandatory to inject into your blood whatever science tells you to

how about if they want to rent a room to someone who shares your beliefs?

discrimination when science says homosexuals were born that way (and, btw, science doesn't say that)

how about if you want the public schools to teach that teens should abstain from sexual activity until married?

science claims that (ha-ha) that's impossible to teach

want to decide for yourself if you'd rather take and risk not wearing your seat belt because it's uncomfortable?

good heavens, do you realize what science would say?

"It might be okay to tell students that marijuana can cause cognitive impairment (duh, it's called "being high"), but if you look back through this web site you will see that TTF consistently stands in favor of individual liberty"

absolutely not

they believe we should tax the rich and redistribute it to the rest of the population to reduce income inequality

let me quote Dylan:

"some self-ordained professor's tongue.

too serious to fool.

spouted out that liberty

is just equality in school.

equality.

I spoke the word.

as if a wedding vow.

but I was so much older then

I'm younger than that now"

"We do not support the freedom of jerks to harass and intimidate those who are different from them, and the reason for that is that those who are different deserve to have liberty, too"

yes, but your definition of harass and intimidate leaves a whole lot of room for suppression of freedom

"As for the legalization of marijuana, I think there are a number of cases that can be made for that – including several successful examples in Europe. (Oh those socialists again!!) We could certainly use the tax revenue. (I know, I know, you can’t tax businesses and stifle the economy, but that’s the way I swing.)

Since I have never tried marijuana or other illegal drugs, and given the fact that I have no desire to, I see no reason to get my knickers in a twist over the fact that they haven’t been legalized yet. The folks I hang out with don’t appear that interested in legalizing marijuana either; they’re too busy trying to make sure they get or keep a job after or through transition."

well, they might get a job in the cannibis industry if not for Obama

you may not care if it's illegal because you think it doesn't affect you but, as any true TTFer can tell you, the price of liberty is eternal vigilance

November 01, 2011 5:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"But I remember how badly I was ridiculed on this blog for insisting that I teach my children they can do whatever they decide they want to do....

this is a quote from Hillary Clinton, speaking about her mother...(who died yesterday, though this quote is older)

"I owe it to my mother, who never got a chance to go to college, who had a very difficult childhood, but who gave me a belief that I could do whatever I set my mind," she said.

so apparently that is not just a Theresa belief. and dare I point out, look what Hillary achieved.

It's a good quote, Theresa, and I'm glad you feel that way. It was only the generation before ours when women were expected to be subservient to men, they were expected to stay home and raise children. Now that there is a movement to empower women, gender roles are shifting to make way. I am glad to hear that you support this social revolution."

this is indeed the land of opportunity and women are more empowered in lands with a Judeo-Christian heritage than anywhere else

extreme socialists often deny this because they are resentful failures

November 01, 2011 5:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Wow, anon, it looks like you've taken everything Ann Coulter ever said about liberals and attributed it all to TTF.

There is solid evidence for global warming and I think most Americans agree it is wise to take care of our environment. You can argue about it but polluters need to be reined in. The corporations are ruining the environment not only for themselves but for everybody else. You can bitch about whether temperatures are rising, but let me ask you -- do your kids know what the Milky Way is? Have they ever seen it? Could you, when you were a kid? I could. You used to be able to see the stars.

If parents don't want their kid to get a vaccine then they're idiots but nobody here is going to force them to do it.

I have no idea in the world what you mean about TTF wanting to "inject into your blood whatever science tells you to". I personally don't like needles a bit!

You can rent a room to anyone you want, but a landlord cannot discriminate on the basis of religion, race, and other things. Is that what you're complaining about? We didn't make that up, that's basic civil rights stuff. It is a way to force jerks like you to play fair.

Science does not say how someone becomes homosexual, and your statement about discrimination is incoherent. Are you saying you think the schools teach that "homosexuals are born that way?" I think it's Lady Gaga who says that, not the schools. The schools say it's innate, and it is.

TTF supports teaching that teens should abstain from sex until they are mature enough to make responsible decisions. That's what the current curriculum says, and it makes sense. Abstain until marriage? Come on, anon, something like two percent of the population does that, it's a dumb idea. You didn't do it, why would you even tell somebody that?

You outdid yourself with this one: "science claims that (ha-ha) that's impossible to teach." WTF is that supposed to mean?

The comment about the seat belt is also incoherent. Are you saying TTF advises not wearing seatbelts, or that we believe everyone should be forced to wear them, or what? I am pretty sure there has been no statement made here or anywhere else suggesting that TTF has an opinion on this subject. I think it is smart to wear a seatbelt but if you don't want to I am happy to let Darwinism work its way with you.

"they believe we should tax the rich and redistribute it to the rest of the population to reduce income inequality" Listen, anon, I get the feeling that TTF -- like most Americans -- is made up of people who are fed up with the way greedy corporations have bloated profits and executive pay while they move jobs overseas and undercut workers' salaries, benefits, and job security. I understand that "redistributing the wealth" is a codeword for socialism among the uneducated, but one function of government is to see that commerce is regulated in a fair way. Most Americans agree on that. Most Americans believe that the very rich fail to contribute in a fair way to the common good.

I understand that you think "freedom" means you can make life miserable for others, and we differ there. You get equal freedom to the rest of us, not more. I know that's a hard concept for you and do not expect you to absorb it. But in America, even gay people, even transgender people are guaranteed the freedom of expression that jerks like you take for granted. And it is government's job to protect that freedom.

I can't tell what you're saying about cannabis but I'll bet you the majority of TTFers are not worried if their neighbors get high, and would prefer to see the government legalize and tax the stuff rather than sending people to jail for it. I'm just guessing. Personally I think it's absurd for the federal government to be busting people when there are so many serious problems that need attention.

November 01, 2011 6:49 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The racial diversity of the Occupy Wall Street protests has already been a matter of debate for some time, but now, one high-profile voice has sounded off on Zuccotti Park's perceived lack of gay protesters.

Joan Rivers -- a longtime ally of the LGBT community -- spoke frankly about the protests while hosting a book release party for Alan Shayne and Norman Sunshine's "Double Life: A Love Story from Broadway to Hollywood," which offers a behind-the-scenes look at the entertainment business as seen through a fifty-year love affair between two men.

"Gay men have better bodies, on the whole," Rivers is quoted as saying. "That's number one, and number two: They care more about what they look like. Very seldom will you find a gay schlep." She went on to note, "This is why there are no gay protesters in Zuccotti Park. Because there's no place to change, and no closets."

But the outspoken comedian also had other words for the ongoing anti-establishment movement. "I think Occupy Wall Street was terrific the first week, and it has now turned into a very happy druggy party," she said. "I suggest they all get jobs and go back to work. What was an amazing and wonderful thing, I now find just ridiculous. Everyone's on drugs and everybody's singing, and they now have a DVD out, and now they want to do a reality show."

November 01, 2011 7:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

When the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) lost a federal contract with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) in October for the work it does with sex trafficking victims, many people suspected it was because the Catholic group will not provide or refer for abortions.

On Monday, The Washington Post reported that speculation as a fact.

Citing HHS sources who spoke on condition of anonymity, The Post reported that the USCCB contract was a matter of much discussion — and strife — within HHS before the agency officially adopted a policy giving “strong preference” to grant applicants that would provide or offer referrals for “the full range of legally permissible gynecological and obstetric care.”

“It was so clearly and blatantly trying to come up with a certain outcome. That’s very distasteful to people,” one official told the paper.

Since 2006, the USCCB has received $19 million from the federal government for the work it does providing food, shelter and counseling to sex-trafficking victims. But in 2009, the American Civil Liberties Union sued the government for granting the money to the pro-life USCCB, claiming it’s an “unconstitutional” use of taxpayer dollars. That case was heard by a federal judge in Massachusetts on Oct. 18; a decision is pending.

Though HHS officially denies committing any kind of religious discrimination, The Post reports that internal documents reveal an independent review board and career staff members had recommended that USCCB’s contract be renewed, but “senior political appointees” in the department overrode them.

According to the review board, the new recipients of the grant money did not score as well as the USCCB — leading several of the career officials to refuse to sign off on the documents awarding them the grant.

The USCCB did not return calls for comment. But Sister Mary Ann Walsh, one of the organization’s spokespeople, wrote in an Oct. 13 blog post that the situation smacks of religious discrimination.

“The USCCB program excelled because of its anytime-anywhere approach,” she wrote. “Should an Immigration Enforcement official find a vulnerable child, for example, a call to the program got safe housing immediately.

“The program worked well on the ground, but not so well for distant administrators promoting the abortion and contraception agenda, who bristle at the fact that in accord with church teaching, USCCB won’t facilitate taking innocent life, sterilization and artificial contraception. … So much for the (Obama a)dministration’s guarantee of conscience protection.”

November 01, 2011 8:30 PM  
Anonymous Let's hear from both sides said...

"Cain, appearing Tuesday night on Fox News' "Special Report With Bret Baier," responded to the Washington Post article. Baier asked Cain if he would request that the National Restaurant Association waive the nondisclosure agreement so that the accuser could tell her side of the story. The Republican contender responded, "I can't answer that now" due to "legal implications."

A CBS News report adds a twist involving the nondisclosure agreement. Joel Bennett, the lawyer for one of the accusers, spoke to CBS following interviews that Cain gave to PBS and Fox News in which he recalled details of one of the alleged incidents. From CBS News:

Bennett said Cain was talking about the case of another woman, not his client. But Bennett said now that Cain is talking about specifics, the confidentiality agreements may no longer be binding.

"I think the National Restaurant Associaion ought to waive the confidentiality and non-disparagement provisions and let the two women, if they choose to do so, come forward and tell their stories so that it can get a complete public airing," Bennett said."

Both accusers should get to tell their side of the story on Fox shows hosted by Van Susteren, Hannity, and Baier, and any more shows Fox gives Cain air time to disparage these women and their settled complaints. A whole year's salary of severance pay is a pretty hefty settlement for "innocence."

Come on Fox, show us how fair and balanced you are and give these women the same amount of air time you gave Cain to talk about these incidents.

BTW, my sincere thanks to Fox News for getting it right by posting an AP produced article, not a Fox original, about Mrs. Rodham's passing.

November 02, 2011 7:53 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"A whole year's salary of severance pay is a pretty hefty settlement for "innocence.""

in the real world, that happens

but jumping to conclusions is not appropriate

for all we know, the women could have access to all kinds of confidential information an association would prefer not to have aired publicly but which might come out during a trial

November 02, 2011 10:05 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If Cain is free to speak about the allegations of sexual harassment and disparage these women by saying things like their work was "not up to par," these women should be just as free to talk about the allegations and defend their reputations from Cain, whose one side of the story has been aired by Fox News multiple times on multiple shows.

November 02, 2011 10:20 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"If Cain is free to speak about the allegations of sexual harassment and disparage these women by saying things like their work was "not up to par," these women should be just as free to talk about the allegations and defend their reputations from Cain"

they can but they agreed to a settlement and will have to return the funds they received if they violate it

btw, Cain hasn't named names and he didn't bring the story up

it's not unusual for associations to be hit with personnel suits on a regular basis

it's common practice to try and settle them as a normal cost of business

we live in a litigious society and sometimes you just have to makke the best of it

November 02, 2011 10:56 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Karl Rove: Herman Cain must let accusers speak

Karl Rove said Wednesday that Herman Cain must take steps to get the National Restaurant Association to release new information about the harassment charges filed against him there, as well as give his accusers the freedom to tell their side of the story in the case.

In an interview on the radio show "Kilmeade and Friends," Rove said that the "only way to get past this" is for Cain to "get the National Restaurant Association to release its report" on harassment complaints made against Cain.

And now that Cain has told his side of the story, Rove said, "It's gonna look unfair if he doesn't take take proactive measures to encourage the Restaurant Association to allow the women in question to come forward."

Cain has not yet said whether he will ask the NRA to release documents related to the harassment claims made during his tenure as the group's president, or whether he will seek to waive his own privacy and confidentiality rights in order to let one of his accusers speak."

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1111/67451.html#ixzz1cZGBAlcJ

November 02, 2011 12:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

it's kind of unfair that a private association would have to release information after paying to have the information kept quiet

btw, Obama is returning to his 2008 strategy of declaring that people should elect him for religious reasons:

"During his appearance in front of the Key Bridge in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday, President Obama made fun of recent Congressional agenda items while making his case for legislators to take up his jobs bill.

"In the House of Representatives, what have you been debating, John?" Obama said, referring to House Speaker John Boehner.

"You've been debating a commemorative coin for baseball. You've had legislation reaffirming that 'In God We Trust' is our motto? That's not putting people back to work."

The president goes on to suggest that God is on his side."

btw, Obama went on Jay Leno last week and said he's not paying attention to the Republican contest until "the last survivor has been voted off the island."

meanwhile, he's roving the country attacking Mitt Romney and his PAC has launched a million dollar push to attack Romney's record

I know all politicians lie but wasn't Mr. Above Politics supposed to hopey-changey the country?

November 02, 2011 1:04 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"I know all politicians lie but wasn't Mr. Above Politics supposed to hopey-changey the country?"

Are saying Obama lied about something?

November 02, 2011 1:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

can't anything past you, can we?

November 02, 2011 4:13 PM  
Anonymous And then there were three said...

"WASHINGTON (AP) -- A third former employee says she considered filing a workplace complaint over what she considered aggressive and unwanted behavior by Herman Cain when she worked for the presidential candidate in the 1990s. She says the behavior included a private invitation to his corporate apartment.

She worked for the National Restaurant Association when he was its head. She told The Associated Press that Cain made sexually suggestive remarks or gestures about the same time that two co-workers had settled separate harassment complaints against him.

The employee described situations in which she said Cain told her he had confided to colleagues how attractive she was and invited her to his corporate apartment outside work. She spoke on condition of anonymity, saying she feared retaliation.

Cain's campaign declined to comment.

Chris Wilson, a former NRA staffer, told Oklahoma radio station KTOK that he witnessed Cain sexually harassing a woman at Virginia restaurant in the late 90s. Wilson said that while he could not discuss specifics of what happened, "If she talks about it, I think it'll be the end of his campaign."

Wilson confirmed the incident to Politico.

"It was very uncomfortable," he said.

Conservative radio host Steve Deace also told Politico that Cain said "awkward" and "inappropriate" things to his station's staff.

Cain told Forbes on Wednesday that Curt Anderson, a former Cain consultant and current Rick Perry adviser, is responsible for leaking information about the sexual harassment claims to the press.

Both Anderson and Perry spokesman Ray Sullivan have denied the charge."

November 02, 2011 5:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

didn't a TTFer say the other day that women aren't empowered

apparently, any women in America can veto any Presidential candidate by simply alleging sexual harassment

no proof required

especially if it's a black conservative

it's very threatening to the liberal media if a member of a voting bloc that votes 95% Democratic doesn't want to go along

"Esteemed political analyst Ann Coulter repeated her thought-provoking comments about conservative African Americans during an appearance on Joy Behar's Tuesday HLN show.

Coulter has been making the media rounds lately, defending Herman Cain from the recent media frenzy surrounding allegations of sexual harassment against the GOP frontrunner. On Monday, Coulter appeared on Sean Hannity's show and made an astute observation when, speaking about conservatives, she said that "our blacks are so much better than their blacks."

When Behar tried to argue the standard liberal line, Coulter pointed out how mistaken and ill-informed Behar was. She said she believed that "America these days" was "against conservative blacks." She added that conservative African Americans were "more impressive" than liberal ones, and that liberals "were vicious" in their attacks against them.

Behar try to imply that the word "impressive" was "code." Coulter dismissed her attempt, saying there was "no question" that it was true.

"I won't get into a race conversation," Behar said. "You say liberals detest conservative blacks. I like Michael Steele. He's a fine black."

Coulter went on to say that Cain is a real threat to President Obama. "A conservative black is a massive threat to the entire liberal establishment and this is a smart powerful black," she said."

November 02, 2011 6:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"didn't a TTFer say the other day that women aren't empowered"

No, exactly the opposite. We were glad to see that Theresa agreed with us about the desirability of our society's evolution toward a more equitable division between the sexes, resulting in women increasing their power in the economy as well as more control over their sexual and reproductive choices.

November 02, 2011 6:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

oh, I see

you were saving the punch line for the end

and should men also have more control over their choice to kill anyone causing them inconvenience?

not sure I heard Theresa defend that

November 02, 2011 7:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Men who get pregnant should definitely be allowed to choose whether to carry the baby to term.

November 02, 2011 7:06 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What I said was that mothers should teach their children that they can do whatever they put their minds too.....

Against what some here on TTF have argued in the past !

I was using Hillary Clinton's quote about her mother as an example that some on the left agree with that strategy of raising children...

And I pointed out that Hillary Clinton has accomplished a lot... the lady has a law degree, secretary of state, first truly successful attempt at becoming president, etc. She has done a lot you can admire, as for that matter has Sarah Palin.

A support for income equality and job equality and advancement equality doesn't imply a support for a support for sexual reproductive "rights" when those "rights" imply abortion as a means of birth control.

I also resent the heck out of transgenders blurring the lines between "strong successful women" meaning those women somehow are more "male" because they pursure more traditionally "male" careers or enjoy more traditionally "male" pursuits.

That's an insult to me, to Hillary Clinton, to Sarah Palin, to my daughters, to my sister, to my nanny on her way to becoming a doctor, and to my close girlfriends (whom as a rule, are stong successful agressive women). Who are pushy. Who have more cahonas then the guys we work with ... who work harder then the guys in a lot of cases....

Strong females are just that... strong females... more female by definition. that doesn't mean we are assuming a MALE gender role. That's utterly and completely ridiculous.

And to teach teenagers that they might be a different sex in their "brain" because they are tough kids... is simply criminal.

Women have always been tough. Why do you think God picked us to bear children ???

Theresa

November 02, 2011 7:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"A support for income equality and job equality and advancement equality doesn't imply a support for a support for sexual reproductive "rights" when those "rights" imply abortion as a means of birth control. "

Hee hee. You absolutely miss the point. You want men to concede some kinds of power to women while they, the males, retain the right to decide whether they, the women, will be pregnant or not.

They are not two things, Theresa, you cannot give women economic power without giving them the power to choose their sex partners and the right to control their own uterus.

November 02, 2011 7:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Hee hee. You absolutely miss the point. You want men to concede some kinds of power to women while they, the males, retain the right to decide whether they, the women, will be pregnant or not."

Did I say I was in favor of rape ? Did I say I was against the pill or the IUD or the rhythm method or shocker - abstinence ?

No, I said I was against abortion as a means of birth control. Which it all too frequently is used as....

A women is in complete control of her ability to be pregnant - because rape is against the law and condoms are - wait for it - 99% effective when used consistently every time. Coupled with the pill - possibly even bullet proof.

And abstinence is 100% effective. So from that, how do you get that a male is retaining the right to decide whether a women will be pregnant. The women makes that decision in her decision to engage in sex.

November 02, 2011 7:54 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Say she gets pregnant and there are circumstances that you and I don't know about, and she feels she must terminate the pregnancy, and more than one American woman in four does at some point during her lifetime.

According to your statement, "The women makes that decision in her decision to engage in sex," she should now be punished for being a slut and making the wrong decision (maybe she was unaware at the time of the same circumstances that you and I dont know about) by being forced to carry a fetus to term and giving birth. And then, I suppose, raising the little angel.

The women's movement of the past generation absolutely requires that she -- and only she -- has the right to decide whether to carry the pregnancy to birth.

You want to cherry-pick the economic benefits of the women's movement and pretend that men, whether in a state or federal legislature or sitting in the bench as judges, should retain the right to decide what happens to a woman's uterus.

Unh, uh, it doesn't work that way. You empower women for real or you "let them win" in the workplace and keep them under your thumb where it counts.

November 02, 2011 8:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

that's an utterly ridiculous analogy. Aren't we one of the few countries that still allows abortion ? What about the kid in her uterus for pete's sake....modern technology has certain shown us that life exists from a very young age.

It all comes down to personal responsibility. Again. You are telling me she got pregnant and she doesn't know how ? BS.

Look, I will have to let someone else chime in because I am trying to figure out the appropriate amt to put in flex for next year and it's due at midnight and I am nowhere close.

November 02, 2011 8:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You don't know why all those women need abortions and are in no position to decide for them. You want to earn money like a man and then let a man tell you what you may have in your uterus. = Fail.

November 02, 2011 9:05 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You don't know why all those women need abortions and are in no position to decide for them."

good point

just like we have no idea why Adolf Hitler wanted to kill so many people and we are in no position to decide for him

killing a child is actually very evil

"You want to earn money like a man and then let a man tell you what you may have in your uterus."

actually, both men and women have a role in government and whether it is legal to kill babies

many of those children being killed are actually female so this is not something that is only of interest to women

"= Fail."

yes, both your logic and your sense of right and wrong have failed

November 02, 2011 10:46 PM  
Anonymous dressed like an injun said...

you didn't see this at Tea Party rallies:

"A 26-year old man was arrested on Tuesday for charges of sexual assault including allegedly raping a fellow Occupy Wall Street protestor and groping another in separate incidents.

According to police officials, Tonye Iketubosin allegedly raped an 18-year old woman from Massachusetts who took up Iketubosin's offer to let her stay in his tent on Saturday, following an argument with a male friend whom she had originally been sharing her tent with.

Iketubosin is also being connected for allegedly sexually assaulting a 17-year old female after helping her set up a tent on October 24th. The Wall Street Journal writes:

Early the next morning, she went inside and found him there. She told police that he ignored her repeated requests to leave. Then he groped her until the pushed him away.
Iketubosin had been working at the protest's kitchen and sleeping in the park for more than a week.

Another protestor, Beau Sibbing, who has also been working at the kitchen said that Iketubosin "was a genuinely nice guy...he came to get shit done.""

November 02, 2011 11:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"You want to earn money like a man"

What a chauvinist pig you are ...

I mean seriously. You think anyone in my company says to me "I want to earn money like a man" we are all treated as equals and members of a team... and I make more than a lot of the guys !

Flex is submitted, I am going to go watch Stewart and go to bed.

Theresa

November 02, 2011 11:26 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

more adventures in playing the religious card by B Obama:

"WASHINGTON -- It was a blunder of biblical proportions.

White House spokesman Jay Carney invoked scripture Wednesday to back up President Barack Obama's suggestion that God wants policymakers to get busy and create more jobs.

Carney said Obama was trying to make the point that "we have it within our capacity to do the things to help the American people."

"I believe the phrase from the Bible is, `The Lord helps those who help themselves,'" Carney said.

Well, no, not really.

A White House transcript of Carney's briefing issued later in the day included the disclaimer: "This common phrase does not appear in the Bible.""

November 03, 2011 6:49 AM  
Anonymous Land of the free?? said...

"If faced with a medical crisis who would you turn to first– a trained, licensed medical professional or a Catholic bishop? And who would you want advising lawmakers on the kinds of regulations necessary surrounding access to health care–doctors or bishops?

If you answered doctors, well, you are out of luck. That’s because the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops are the ones pushing, and practically writing, every major anti-abortion legislation over the past several years.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops likes to stay behind the scenes but, in part because their efforts have been largely successful, have found the spotlight. With the GOP-controlled House, they have pushed Republicans to vote to slash federal family planning funds for low-income women, moved to prevent women from using their own money to buy insurance plans that cover abortion, introduced legislation that would force women to have ultrasounds before receiving an abortion and passed a bill that would allow hospitals to refuse to perform abortions for women with life-threatening pregnancy complications.

Welcome to the theocracy."

What chauvinist pigs they all are ... telling us women what we insurance we can and cannot buy with our own hard earned money and trying to come between us and our own doctors.

November 03, 2011 7:48 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Keep your rosaries off my ovaries!

November 03, 2011 7:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

those chauvinists are also against allowing spouses to buy hit man insurance

what if you couldn't stand your spouse anymore and couldn't afford to hire a hit man?

these bishops want to deny you the right to buy insurance to cover yourself in such a circumstance

thes incense-wavers need to BACK OFF!!

November 03, 2011 8:33 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home