Hierarchical differences: Female academics less likely to cross rank in collaboration, study finds

women were supposed to be the cooperative sex... like usual the feminists were either lying or just wrong

(h/t CHSommers)Women of different social or professional “ranks” within academic departments collaborate less than men do, according to a new Harvard study, suggesting that female full professors prefer to work on academic papers with other female full professors rather than assistant professors. When the pool was narrowed to women of the same rank, collaboration was equal to that of men.

The study’s authors are Joyce Benenson, an associate of Harvard’s Human Evolutionary Biology Department and a professor of psychology at Emmanuel College; Richard Wrangham, the Ruth B. Moore Professor of Human Evolutionary Biology; and Henry Markovits, a professor of psychology at the University of Quebec at Montreal. The work was described in a paper published March 3 in Current Biology.

Benenson and Wrangham have been pursuing parallel lines of research over a number of years with both children and chimpanzees. Their studies demonstrate that males are more likely to interact in large groups consisting of various ranks, whereas females form one-on-one, exclusive relationships with equals. It seemed that the findings would translate into different forms of cooperation in actual organizations, but the idea had never been tested because of the difficulty involved in establishing objective measures of cooperation.

“The question we wanted to examine was: Do men or women cooperate differently with members of their own sex?” Wrangham said. “The conventional wisdom is that women cooperate more easily, but when you look at how armies or sports teams function, there is evidence that men are better at cooperating in some ways.”

Benenson and Wrangham settled on co-authored academic papers as an objective measure of cooperation, and began by identifying 50 institutions from across the United States and Canada with at least two male and female full professors and two male and female assistant professors in their psychology departments. Researchers then identified all articles written by senior faculty from 2008 to 2012, and recorded how often within the same department senior faculty worked with other senior faculty of the same sex, and how often senior faculty worked with junior faculty of the same sex.

While the research focused on the world of higher education, lead author Benenson said she first became interested in differences between how men and women cooperate during her work with children.

“When I studied young children, I noticed that boys were typically interacting in groups, and girls tended to focus on one-on-one relationships,” said Benenson, who discusses these findings in her new book, “Warriors and Worriers.”

“There is even evidence that these differences exist in 6-month-olds — but you can see it with the naked eye by about 5 or 6 years old, where boys form these large, loose groups, and girls tend to pair off into more intense, close friendships.”

What makes the differences particularly provocative, Benenson said, is that chimpanzees organize their relationships in nearly identical ways.

“Chimpanzee males usually have another individual they’re very close with, and they may constantly battle for dominance, but they also have a larger, loose group of allies,” Benenson said. “When it comes to defeating other groups, everybody bands together. I would argue that females don’t have that biological inclination, and they don’t have the practice.”

That’s not to suggest women are inherently flawed when it comes to cooperation.

In fact, Benenson said, women are often thought of as being more egalitarian than men. “But there’s a flip side no one thinks about, which is: What happens when they’re with someone who isn’t the same rank?”

While the study offers evidence that women, in some situations, may not collaborate as often as men, Wrangham made it a point to emphasize the host of unanswered questions behind those differences.

“There is cross-cultural evidence for this phenomenon, you see it in early development, and in one of our closest relatives,” said Wrangham. “That pushes us into thinking that there is a strong biological influence here, but we would never suggest this is impervious to environmental and cultural influences as well.

“Nevertheless these are the kinds of fascinating questions about fundamental sex differences in social relationships that would be tremendously important to recognize if you want to change the way in which women’s access to higher ranks happens,” he added. “What we need to know, now that we have recognized these patterns, is what can we do to ameliorate them?”

Major new study from Cambridge University just out: male and female brains are different.PC feminists won't like it

(Cambridge)(h/t CHSummers) New study examines thousands of brains from two decades of research to reveal differences between male and female brain structure.

For the first time we can look across the vast literature and confirm that brain size and structure are different in males and females

Amber Ruigrok

Reviewing over 20 years of neuroscience research into sex differences in brain structure, a Cambridge University team has conducted the first meta-analysis of the evidence, published this week in the prestigious journal Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews. 

The team, led by doctoral candidate Amber Ruigrok and Professors John Suckling and Simon Baron-Cohen in the Department of Psychiatry, performed a quantitative review of the brain imaging literature testing overall sex differences in total and regional brain volumes. They searched all articles published between 1990 and 2013. A total of 126 articles were included in the study, covering brains from individuals as young as birth to 80 years old.

They found that males on average have larger total brain volumes than women (by 8-13%). On average, males had larger absolute volumes than females in the intracranial space (12%; >14,000 brains), total brain (11%; 2,523 brains), cerebrum (10%; 1,851 brains), grey matter (9%; 7,934 brains), white matter (13%; 7,515 brains), regions filled with cerebrospinal fluid (11.5%; 4,484 brains), and cerebellum (9%; 1,842 brains). Looking more closely, differences in volume between the sexes were located in several regions. These included parts of the limbic system, and the language system.

Specifically, males on average had larger volumes and higher tissue densities in the left amygdala, hippocampus, insular cortex, putamen; higher densities in the right VI lobe of the cerebellum and in the left claustrum; and larger volumes in the bilateral anterior parahippocampal gyri, posterior cingulate gyri, precuneus, temporal poles, and cerebellum, areas in the left posterior and anterior cingulate gyri, and in the right amygdala, hippocampus, and putamen.

By contrast, females on average had higher density in the left frontal pole, and larger volumes in the right frontal pole, inferior and middle frontal gyri, pars triangularis, planum temporale/parietal operculum, anterior cingulate gyrus, insular cortex, and Heschl’s gyrus; bilateral thalami and precuneus; the left parahippocampal gyrus, and lateral occipital cortex.

The results highlight an asymmetric effect of sex on the developing brain. Amber Ruigrok, who carried out the study as part of her PhD, said: “For the first time we can look across the vast literature and confirm that brain size and structure are different in males and females. We should no longer ignore sex in neuroscience research, especially when investigating psychiatric conditions that are more prevalent in either males or females.”

Professor Suckling added: “The sex differences in the limbic system include areas often implicated in psychiatric conditions with biased sex ratios such as autism, schizophrenia, and depression. This new study may therefore help us understand not just typical sex differences but also sex-linked psychiatric conditions. It is important to note that we only investigated sex differences in brain structure, so we cannot infer anything about how this relates to behaviour or brain function. Integrating across different levels will be an important goal for future research.”

Professor Baron-Cohen commented: “Although these very clear sex differences in brain structure may reflect an environmental or social factor, from other studies we know that biological influences are also important, including prenatal sex steroid hormones (such as foetal testosterone) as well as sex chromosome effects. Such influences need to be teased out, one by one.”

Dr Meng-Chuan Lai, another member of the team, noted: “The advantage of conducting a meta-analysis is that we can summarise the best knowledge from a vast, heterogeneous literature, with a very large sample size. However, we found a bias in the existing literature towards the use of volunteers over 18 years old, probably because this is the easiest age group to recruit and to brain scan. We need more research exploring brain development over the entire lifespan, especially in the early, formative years”.

This study was supported by the Medical Research Council, the Wellcome Trust, the Autism Research Trust, the Dr Hendrik Müller Vaderlandsch Fonds, the Carolus Magnus Fonds under the Prins Bernard Cultuurfonds, and the Waterloo Foundation. It was conducted in association with the NIHR CLAHRC for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough NHS Foundation Trust.

- See more at: http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/males-and-females-differ-in-specific-brain-structures#sthash.0Gn3QE4N.dpuf)

You Can Give a Boy a Doll, but You Can't Make Him Play With It - Christina Hoff Sommers

The logistical and ethical problems with trying to make toys gender-neutral

Top-Toy

Is it discriminatory and degrading for toy catalogs to show girls playing with tea sets and boys with Nerf guns? A Swedish regulatory group says yes. The Reklamombudsmannen (RO) has reprimanded Top-Toy, a licensee of Toys"R"Us and one of the largest toy companies in Northern Europe, for its "outdated" advertisements and has pressured it to mend its "narrow-minded" ways. After receiving "training and guidance" from RO equity experts, Top-Toy introduced gender neutrality in its 2012 Christmas catalogue. The catalog shows little boys playing with a Barbie Dream House and girls with guns and gory action figures. As its marketing director explains, "For several years, we have found that the gender debate has grown so strong in the Swedish market that we have had to adjust."
Swedes can be remarkably thorough in their pursuit of gender parity. A few years ago, a feminist political party proposed a law requiring men to sit while urinating—less messy and more equal. In 2004, the leader of the Sweden's Left Party Feminist Council, Gudrun Schyman,proposed a "man tax"—a special tariff to be levied on men to pay for all the violence and mayhem wrought by their sex. In April 2012, following the celebration of International Women's Day, the Swedes formally introduced the genderless pronoun "hen" to be used in place of he and she (han and hon).

Related Story

The Most Complicated Words in English: 'He,' 'She,' and 'They'

Egalia, a new state-sponsored pre-school in Stockholm, is dedicated to the total obliteration of the male and female distinction. There are no boys and girls at Egalia—just "friends" and "buddies." Classic fairy tales like Cinderella and Snow White have been replaced by tales of two male giraffes who parent abandoned crocodile eggs. The Swedish Green Party would like Egalia to be the norm: It has suggested placing gender watchdogs in all of the nation's preschools. "Egalia gives [children] a fantastic opportunity to be whoever they want to be," says one excited teacher. (It is probably necessary to add that this is not an Orwellian satire or a right-wing fantasy: This school actually exists.)
The problem with Egalia and gender-neutral toy catalogs is that boys and girls, on average, do not have identical interests, propensities, or needs. Twenty years ago, Hasbro, a major American toy manufacturing company, tested a playhouse it hoped to market to both boys and girls. It soon emerged that girls and boys did not interact with the structure in the same way. The girls dressed the dolls, kissed them, and played house. The boys catapulted the toy baby carriage from the roof. A Hasbro manager came up with a novel explanation: "Boys and girls are different."
They are different, and nothing short of radical and sustained behavior modification could significantly change their elemental play preferences. Children, with few exceptions, are powerfully drawn to sex-stereotyped play. David Geary, a developmental psychologist at the University of Missouri, told me in an email this week, "One of the largest and most persistent differences between the sexes are children's play preferences." The female preference for nurturing play and the male propensity for rough-and-tumble hold cross-culturally and even cross-species (with a few exceptions—female spotted hyenas seem to be at least as aggressive as males). Among our close relatives such as vervet and rhesus monkeys, researchers have found that females play with dolls far more than their brothers, who prefer balls and toy cars. It seems unlikely that the monkeys were indoctrinated by stereotypes in a Top-Toy catalog. Something else is going on.
Biology appears to play a role. Several animal studies have shown that hormonal manipulation can reverse sex-typed behavior. When researchers exposed female rhesus monkeys to male hormones prenatally, these females later displayed male-like levels of rough-and-tumble play. Similar results are found in human beings. Congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) is a genetic condition that results when the female fetus is subjected to unusually large quantities of male hormones—adrenal androgens. Girls with CAH tend to prefer trucks, cars, and construction sets over dolls and play tea sets. As psychologist Doreen Kimura reported in Scientific American, "These findings suggest that these preferences were actually altered in some way by the early hormonal environment." They also cast doubt on the view that gender-specific play is primarily shaped by socialization.
Professor Geary does not have much hope for the new gender-blind toy catalogue: "The catalog will almost certainly disappear in a few years, once parents who buy from it realize their kids don't want these toys." Most little girls don't want to play with dump trucks, as almost any parent can attest. Including me: When my granddaughter Eliza was given a toy train, she placed it in a baby carriage and covered it with a blanket so it could get some sleep.
Androgyny advocates like our Swedish friends have heard such stories many times, and they have an answer. They acknowledge that sex differences have at least some foundation in biology, but they insist that culture can intensify or diminish their power and effect. Even if Eliza is prompted by nature to interact with a train in a stereotypical female way, that is no reason for her parents not to energetically correct her. Hunter College psychologist Virginia Valian, a strong proponent of Swedish-style re-genderization, wrote in the book Why So Slow? The Advancement of Women, "We do not accept biology as destiny ... We vaccinate, we inoculate, we medicate... I propose we adopt the same attitude toward biological sex differences."
Valian is absolutely right that we do not have to accept biology as destiny. But the analogy is ludicrous: We vaccinate, inoculate, and medicate children against disease. Is being a gender-typical little boy or girl a pathology in need of a cure? Failure to protect children from small pox, diphtheria, or measles places them in harm's way. I don't believe there is any such harm in allowing male/female differences to flourish in early childhood. As one Swedish mother, Tanja Bergkvist, told the Associated Press, "Different gender roles aren't problematic as long as they are equally valued." Gender neutrality is not a necessary condition for equality. Men and women can be different—but equal. And for most human beings, the differences are a vital source for meaning and happiness. Since when is uniformity a democratic ideal?
Few would deny that parents and teachers should expose children to a wide range of toys and play activities. But what the Swedes are now doing in some of their classrooms goes far beyond encouraging children to experiment with different toys and play styles—they are requiring it. And toy companies who resist the gender neutrality mandate face official censure. Is this kind of social engineering worth it? Is it even ethical?
To succeed, the Swedish parents, teachers and authorities are going to have to police—incessantly—boys' powerful attraction to large-group rough-and-tumble play and girls' affinity for intimate theatrical play. As Geary says, "You can change some of these behaviors with reinforcement and monitoring, but they bounce back once this stops." But this constant monitoring can also undermine children's healthy development.
Anthony Pellegrini, a professor of early childhood education at the University of Minnesota, defines the kind of rough-and-tumble play that boys favor as a behavior that includes "laughing, running, smiling, jumping, open-hand beating, wrestling, play fighting, chasing and fleeing." This kind of play is often mistakenly regarded as aggression, but according to Pellegrini, it is the very opposite. In cases of schoolyard aggression, the participants are unhappy, they part as enemies, and there are often tears and injuries. Rough-and-tumble play brings boys together, makes them happy, and is a critical party of their social development.
Researchers Mary Ellin Logue (University of Maine) and Hattie Harvey (University of Denver ) agree, and they have documented the benefits of boys' "bad guy" superhero action narratives. Teachers tend not to like such play, say Logue and Harvey, but it improves boys' conversation, creative writing skills, and moral imagination. Swedish boys, like American boys, are languishing far behind girls in school. In a 2009 study Logue and Harvey ask an important question the Swedes should consider: "If boys, due to their choices of dramatic play themes, are discouraged from dramatic play, how will this affect their early language and literacy development and their engagement in school?"
What about the girls? Nearly 30 years ago, Vivian Gussin Paley, a beloved kindergarten teacher at the Chicago Laboratory Schools and winner of a MacArthur "genius" award, published a classic book on children's play entitled Boys & Girls: Superheroes in the Doll Corner. Paley wondered if girls are missing out by not partaking in boys' superhero play, but her observations of the "doll corner" allayed her doubts. Girls, she learned, are interested in their own kind of domination. Boys' imaginative play involves a lot of conflict and imaginary violence; girls' play, on the other hand, seems to be much gentler and more peaceful. But as Paley looked more carefully, she noticed that the girls' fantasies were just as exciting and intense as the boys—though different. There were full of conflict, pesky characters and imaginary power struggles. "Mothers and princesses are as powerful as any superheroes the boys can devise." Paley appreciated the benefits of gendered play for both sexes, and she had no illusions about the prospects for its elimination: "Kindergarten is a triumph of sexual self-stereotyping. No amount of adult subterfuge or propaganda deflects the five-year-old's passion for segregation by sex."
But subterfuge and propaganda appear to be the order of the day in Sweden. In their efforts to free children from the constraints of gender, the Swedish reformers are imposing their own set of inviolate rules, standards, and taboos. Here is how Slate author Nathalie Rothchild describes a gender-neutral classroom:

One Swedish school got rid of its toy cars because boys "gender-coded" them and ascribed the cars higher status than other toys. Another preschool removed "free playtime" from its schedule because, as a pedagogue at the school put it, when children play freely 'stereotypical gender patterns are born and cemented. In free play there is hierarchy, exclusion, and the seed to bullying.' And so every detail of children's interactions gets micromanaged by concerned adults, who end up problematizing minute aspects of children's lives, from how they form friendships to what games they play and what songs they sing.

The Swedes are treating gender-conforming children the way we once treated gender-variant children. Formerly called "tomboy girls" and "sissy boys" in the medical literature, these kids are persistently attracted to the toys of the opposite sex. They will often remain fixated on the "wrong" toys despite relentless, often cruel pressure from parents, doctors, and peers. Their total immersion in sex-stereotyped culture—a non-stop Toys"R"Us indoctrination—seems to have little effect on their passion for the toys of the opposite sex. There was a time when a boy who displayed a persistent aversion to trucks and rough play and a fixation on frilly dolls or princess paraphernalia would have been considered a candidate for behavior modification therapy. Today, most experts encourage tolerance, understanding, and acceptance: just leave him alone and let him play as he wants. The Swedes should extend the same tolerant understanding to the gender identity and preferences of the vast majority of children.

via theatlantic.com

War On Men

(Fox) The battle of the sexes is alive and well. According to Pew Research Center, the share of women ages eighteen to thirty-four that say having a successful marriage is one of the most important things in their lives rose nine percentage points since 1997 – from 28 percent to 37 percent. For men, the opposite occurred. The share voicing this opinion dropped, from 35 percent to 29 percent.
Believe it or not, modern women want to get married. Trouble is, men don’t.
The so-called dearth of good men (read: marriageable men) has been a hot subject in the media as of late. Much of the coverage has been in response to the fact that for the first time in history, women have become the majority of the U.S. workforce. They’re also getting most of the college degrees. The problem? This new phenomenon has changed the dance between men and women.  
As the author of three books on the American family and its intersection with pop culture, I’ve spent thirteen years examining social agendas as they pertain to sex, parenting, and gender roles. During this time, I’ve spoken with hundreds, if not thousands, of men and women. And in doing so, I’ve accidentally stumbled upon a subculture of men who’ve told me, in no uncertain terms, that they’re never getting married. When I ask them why, the answer is always the same.
Women aren’t women anymore.
To say gender relations have changed dramatically is an understatement. Ever since the sexual revolution, there has been a profound overhaul in the way men and women interact. Men haven’t changed much – they had no revolution that demanded it – but women have changed dramatically.
In a nutshell, women are angry. They’re also defensive, though often unknowingly. That’s because they’ve been raised to think of men as the enemy. Armed with this new attitude, women pushed men off their pedestal (women had their own pedestal, but feminists convinced them otherwise) and climbed up to take what they were taught to believe was rightfully theirs.
Now the men have nowhere to go.
It is precisely this dynamic – women good/men bad – that has destroyed the relationship between the sexes. Yet somehow, men are still to blame when love goes awry. Heck, men have been to blame since feminists first took to the streets in the 1970s.
But what if the dearth of good men, and ongoing battle of the sexes, is – hold on to your seats – women’s fault?
You’ll never hear that in the media. All the articles and books (and television programs, for that matter) put women front and center, while men and children sit in the back seat. But after decades of browbeating the American male, men are tired. Tired of being told there’s something fundamentally wrong with them. Tired of being told that if women aren’t happy, it’s men’s fault.
Contrary to what feminists like Hanna Rosin, author of The End of Men, say, the so-called rise of women has not threatened men. It has pissed them off. It has also undermined their ability to become self-sufficient in the hopes of someday supporting a family. Men want to love women, not compete with them. They want to provide for and protect their families – it’s in their DNA. But modern women won’t let them.
It’s all so unfortunate – for women, not men. Feminism serves men very well: they can have sex at hello and even live with their girlfriends with no responsibilities whatsoever.
It’s the women who lose. Not only are they saddled with the consequences of sex, by dismissing male nature they’re forever seeking a balanced life. The fact is, women need men’s linear career goals – they need men to pick up the slack at the office – in order to live the balanced life they seek.
So if men today are slackers, and if they’re retreating from marriage en masse, women should look in the mirror and ask themselves what role they’ve played to bring about this transformation.
Fortunately, there is good news: women have the power to turn everything around. All they have to do is surrender to their nature – their femininity – and let men surrender to theirs.
If they do, marriageable men will come out of the woodwork.

He said, she said: Economists' views differ by gender

A new study shows a large gender gap on economic policy among the nation's professional economists, a divide similar -- and in some cases bigger -- than the gender divide found in the general public.

(A new study shows a large gender gap on attitudes among economists.(Photo: Thinkstock))

Story Highlights

• Male and female economists have opinion differences
• Male economists tend to favor free market solutions
• Female economists tend to support more government

9:10PM EST September 30. 2012 - What does an economist think of that?
A lot depends on whether the economist is a man or a woman. A new study shows a large gender gap on economic policy among the nation's professional economists, a divide similar -- and in some cases bigger -- than the gender divide found in the general public.
Differences extend to core professional beliefs -- such as the effect of minimum wage laws -- not just matters of political opinion.
Female economists tend to favor a bigger role for government while male economists have greater faith in business and the marketplace. Is the U.S. economy excessively regulated? Sixty-five percent of female economists said "no" -- 24 percentage points higher than male economists.
"As a group, we are pro-market," says Ann Mari May, co-author of the study and a University of Nebraska economist. "But women are more likely to accept government regulation and involvement in economic activity than our male colleagues."
Opinion differences between men and women are well-documented in the general public. President Obama leads Mitt Romney by 10 percentage points among women. Romney leads Obama by 3 percentage points among men, according to the latest Gallup Poll.
The survey of 400 economists is one of the first to examine whether gender differences matter within a profession. The answer for economists: Yes.
How economists think:

• Health insurance. Female economists thought employers should be required to provide health insurance for full-time workers: 40% in favor to 37% against, with the rest offering no opinion. By contrast, men were strongly against the idea: 21% in favor and 52% against.
• Education. Females narrowly opposed taxpayer-funded vouchers that parents could use for tuition at a public or private school of their choice. Male economists love the idea: 61% to 14%.
• Labor standards. Females believe 48% to 33% that trade policy should be linked to labor standards in foreign counties. Males disagreed: 60% to 23%.

"It's very puzzling," says free-market economist Veronique de Rugy of the Mercatus Center at George Mason University in Fairfax, Va. "Not a day goes by that I don't ask myself why there are so few women economists on the free-market side."
^“Not a day goes by that I don't ask myself why there are so few women economists on the free market side.^”
-- Veronique de Rugy
A native of France, de Rugy supported government intervention early in her life but changed her mind after studying economics. "We want many of the same things as liberals -- less poverty, more health care -- but have radically different ideas on how to achieve it."
Liberal economist Dean Baker, co-founder of the Center for Economic Policy and Research, says male economists have been on the inside of the profession, confirming each other's anti-regulation views. Women, as outsiders, "are more likely to think independently or at least see people outside of the economics profession as forming their peer group," he says.
The gender balance in economics is changing. One-third of economics doctorates now go to women. The chair of the White House Council of Economic Advisers has been a woman three of 27 times since 1946 -- one advising Obama and two advising Bill Clinton. The Federal Reserve Board of Governors has three women, bringing the total to eight of 90 members since 1914.
"More diversity is needed at the table when public policy is discussed," May says.
Economists do agree on some things. Female economists agree with men that Europe has too much regulation and that Walmart is good for society. Male economists agree with their female colleagues that military spending is too high.
The genders are most divorced from each other on the question of equality for women. Male economists overwhelmingly think the wage gap between men and women is largely the result of individuals' skills, experience and voluntary choices. Female economists overwhelmingly disagree by a margin of 4-to-1.
The biggest disagreement: 76% of women say faculty opportunities in economics favor men. Male economists point the opposite way: 80% say women are favored or the process is neutral.

via usatoday.com

Illinois Congressional Candidate Tammy Duckworth, Sporting Hijab, Denounced "Racism" at Chicago Jihad Bomb Plotter's School the Day After His Arrest

Was anyone watching the DNC and this Duckworth character as she pownced out on her mechanical legs to skewer for the guilt complex to any insight into why it might not be a good idea to have females in combat units. Surely a veteran who lost her legs no one would question... except me. It was an obvious emotional ploy. Just because we have victims does not justify changing the military to make more victims. We men just think women are better with legs because men are better at fighting... and guess what. Not only is this argument reasonable... it is also right. Women in combat units do not help our situation in Iraq. I could tell by the hidden pauses for a smirk on Duckworth's face that she wasn't done. She was going to use her token injury as a reason to hurt politically those who are conservative enough to of kept her out of the battle, hence would of denied her martyrdom. Now she's on to shill for Islam. How predictable

(Pamela Geller /Jihadwatch) How compromised are our politicians? This compromised. As reported at Atlas last Saturday, on Friday night a Muslim was arrested in Chicago after plotting to blow up a car bomb outside a crowded bar. According to ABC News, the would-be jihad murderer, Adel Daoud, 18, attended the Islamic Foundation School in Villa Park.
The very next day after the arrest, Illinois Congressional candidate Tammy Duckworth went to speak at the Islamic cultural center in Villa Park, the same place where jihad killer wannabe Adel Daoud went to school. Did she tell the Muslims there that they needed to cooperate with anti-terror efforts and teach against the passages in the quran that call for killing and subjugating infidels? Did she tell them that the elements of sharia that deny the freedom of speech, and the freedom of conscience, and the equality of rights of all people would never be acceptable here, and would have to be discarded by Muslims in America?
No. Tammy Duckworth put on a hijab, and talked about how the growing minority population makes the white community uncomfortable, and how the whites would have to overcome their "racism." The executive director of the Chicago chapter of Hamas-CAIR, Ahmed Rehab, introduced her. That's how compromised our politicians are.

In an article last December in the Huffington Post, Ahmed Rehab of Hamas-linked CAIR claimed that the "Radical Right," not Islamic jihadists, were the greatest threat to America today. His article was full of the predictable whining, victimhood posturing, and no hint whatsoever that any Muslims are waging jihad against the United States.
The thuggish Rehab has also spoken up in defense of the Islamic supremacist group Hizb-ut-Tahrir's right to hold its convention in Chicago (Hizb-ut-Tahrir is banned in many countries), while working to suppress the freedom of speech of anti-jihadists. 

Jenna Talackova — armed with Gloria Allred as her lawyer — fires back at Miss Universe Canada

This might shock you considering my opinions on Gay Marriage, but if this were the United States I would say Ms. Talackova has a right to compete because there is no legitimate state interest in gender discrimination. That is how the SCOTUS has found things... and that is probably how I would see things as well. Of course I don't know Canadian laws, but my guess is that they are more liberal then ours. She did lie about if she was born a woman or not, but she might very well see herself as always being a woman. Most certainly there are some people that are born without any gender at all and chose to go a certain direction... it all depends on how we declare gender. Even in the Torah there is no criteria of deciding what makes a man or woman. I suppose the Orthodox will remind us that the tradition is to not alter the human body, but she is not a Jew. So on what grounds... legal or moral do we have to throw her out of pageant?

REUTERS/Mario Anzuoni

(National Post)On Monday, amid mounting public backlash, the organization reversed the decision, but added the caveat that Ms. Talackova must meet “the legal gender recognition requirements of Canada.” During Tuesday’s press conference, Ms. Talackova produced her Canadian passport, which identifies her as a woman, and called on Mr. Trump to say, “in plain words whether or not I will be allowed to compete.”
“I have never asked for any special consideration, I only wanted to compete,” she said.
The Miss Universe Organization has also asked that Ms. Talackova meet the “standards established by other international competitions.” As a result, Ms. Talackova’s bid for Miss Universe inclusion could go global, Ms. Page said. “Maybe that’s what Trump and company have in mind,” she said.
Ms. Allred is known for representing high-profile clients, such as: English actress Charlotte Lewis, who alleged that director Roman Polanski had sexually abused her as a teen; Nicole Brown Simpson’s family during the O.J. Simpson murder trial; and a number of Tiger Woods’ ex-lovers.
“[Donald] Trump has caved in a bit already. He has to go the rest of the way and say it loudly, and say it clearly, that not only will Jenna be allowed to compete, but that the rule is gone — no ifs, ands, buts or ors. No conditions and no excuses,” Ms. Allred told reporters.
“Otherwise, we are considering all of Jenna’s legal options.”
As international competitions go, the Olympics have typically been the staging ground for transgendered issues, with women who were born male being accused of having an unfair advantage. In 2004, just before the Athens Olympics, the International Olympic Committee ruled that transexuals could compete, as long as they had completed sex reassignment surgery — and had undergone hormone therapy for at least two years.
In the case of a beauty pageant, it is “hard to claim that Ms. Talackova has an unfair advantage over other women competing for the crown,” reads a March 29 blog post by Mercedes Allen, operator of the Alberta transgendered website AlbertaTrans.org.
Ms. Talackova says she has known she was a female since she was four years old. She began hormone therapy at 14 and had sex reassignment surgery in 2010. “Since I was conscious I always felt this way,” she wrote in an email to Postmedia News two weeks ago.
Ms. Talackova “understandably realizes that her case could be a significant landmark for the dignity and liberty of LGBTQ citizens everywhere,” reads a weekend statement by Talackova spokesman Rory Richards. The 61st annual Miss Universe Canada pageant will begin May 11 in Toronto.(MORE)

Saudi Study; Sex Abuse Rampent as well as Homosexuality

The cause of gender persuasion according to the Muslim public health experts censored on youtube. This does not mean that gay identity isn't natural or part of our nature... It might be normal for women to lean to a gay persuasion after a bad experience with the opposite sex. For many men a forced gay sexual experience might have the opposite pull and might fetish a traumatic experience. Peace is found through gender analysis: More Egyptian women and Saudi and Jordanian men accept a Jewish Israel than their gender counterparts, whereas among the Lebanese both sexes rank similarly.

Why Same-Sex Marriage Bans Qualify as Sex Discrimination

(Volokh.com) 2012-02-08  The Ninth Circuit decision striking down California’s Proposition 8 banning same-sex marriage is unpersuasive because it claims that the law fails to meet even minimal “rational basis” scrutiny. Eugene Volokh does a good job of explaining why. But there is an alternative constitutional rationale for striking down same-sex marriage bans that avoids this problem. Proposition 8 is an example of sex discrimination, and must be evaluated under the higher standards of scrutiny applied to gender discrimination by the Supreme Court.
Although the sex discrimination argument has been advanced by several academic advocates of gay marriage, nonacademics tend to be skeptical because the same-sex marriage bans seem to be targeted against gays, not men or women. Hostility towards gays is certainly part of the motivation for bans on same-sex marriage. But that does not prevent these laws from qualifying as sex discrimination. In terms of the way the law is actually structured, a same-sex marriage ban in fact discriminates on the basis of gender rather than orientation. And it is perfectly possible to discriminate on the basis of sex even if the motivation for doing so is something other than sexism.
Consider the hypothetical case of Anne, Bob, and Colin. If same-sex marriage is forbidden, Anne is allowed to marry Colin, but Bob cannot do so. This is so even if Anne and Bob are identical in every respect other than gender. Bob is denied the legal right to marry Colin (and all other men) solely because he is a man. Denial of a legal right solely on the basis of gender is the very essence of sex discrimination.
By contrast, sexual orientation actually has no effect on the way the law operates. Anne is still allowed to marry Colin, even if one of them happens to be gay or lesbian. Bob is denied that right regardless of his sexual orientation. There are actually lots of real world cases where gays or lesbians have entered into opposite-sex marriages, such as the famous example of former New Jersey Governor James McGreevey, a closeted gay man who was married to a woman for many years. McGreevey’s marriage was not illegal, even if his actions were morally dubious.
All of this simply underscores the reality that a ban on same-sex marriage discriminates on the basis of gender rather than orientation – even if the motivation for the discrimination is hostility towards gays and lesbians. Under the Supreme Court’s approach to sex discrimination, any “statutory classifications that distinguish between males and females” are subject to heightened judicial scrutiny. A ban on same-sex marriage pretty obviously “distinguish[es] between males and females.”
Although a ban on same-sex marriage qualifies as sex discrimination, it is not automatically unconstitutional. Since the 1970s, the Supreme Court has taken the view that laws that discriminate on the basis of sex do not violate the Constitution if they can pass “intermediate scrutiny,” which requires them to be “substantially related” to an “important state interest.” If opponents of same-sex marriage are right to claim that Western civilization will fall into deep decline if the practice is allowed, that would be enough to pass the test. Ditto if they can show that same-sex marriage somehow inflicts severe harm on children. But any such arguments would be subject to detailed judicial scrutiny. They would have to be backed by real evidence, and could not pass muster just by being minimally plausible, as under the “rational basis” test.
Some originalists might reject (Eugene Volokh)'s argument on the grounds that sex discrimination itself is not really banned by the original meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Eugene Volokh) criticized such arguments in this post. For a much more comprehensive rebuttal, see this important recent article by Steven Calabresi and Julia Rickert.
A more moderate originalist critique of my position might hinge on the idea that the framers of the Amendment would not have thought of a same-sex marriage ban as sex discrimination. But it is not hard to figure out that a law under which a legal right is dependent on gender discriminates on the basis of sex. The Framers surely thought that this was justifiable sex discrimination. But that does not mean that it isn’t sex discrimination at all. If asked whether marriage laws circa 1868 limited the right to marry on the basis of gender, most people at the time would surely have said yes. And, as in the case of occupational discrimination against women, the Framers’ view that this form of sex discrimination is constitutionally permissible hinged on dubious factual assumptions that we are not bound by today.
In sum, a ban on same-sex marriage easily qualifies as sex discrimination and is therefore subject to heightened judicial scrutiny. Whether it could withstand such scrutiny is a question I leave to others, though (Eugene Volokh) is skeptical about its chances.

UPDATE: Many commenters seem to be assuming that, in order for a law to qualify as sex discrimination, it has to be motivated by hostility to men or women. Not so. As the Supreme Court puts it, a law can qualify as unconstitutional sex discrimination so long as it is a”statutory classification… that distinguish between males and females.” Similarly, a racial classification counts as racial discrimination for constitutional purposes even if the motives behind it are benign.

It is also not true that a ban on same-sex marriage avoids qualifying as sex discrimination because it affects members of both genders. It still denies rights to both men and women solely on account of their sex.
The fact that Bob cannot marry Colin solely on account of gender is not somehow “balanced” by the fact that Anne is similarly forbidden to marry Carol.

Similarly, a law banning interracial marriage still qualifies as race discrimination even though both blacks and whites are barred from marrying members of the other racial group.

you can slice it how you like it, and call it what you want it... but I don't see the existential need for gay people to protect themselves from unwanted accidental pregnancy within the contractual union. It doesn't matter if it is because of gender or orientation... this is a label. It doesn't matter if the cup is half full or half empty... the point is there is a need for a cup to hold water. The real world application invokes a real need for aid to those that have a unique problem that Gay people don't have.

The Male Sex Has Become like Economic Jews

While it is true that men are more likely to reach the highest levels of income, it is also true that men as a gender these days are discriminated against and have a very hard time staying employed at all. There is a historic parallel. Ironically many feminists have compared opportunities for Jews as being similar to opportunities for women, but the comparison does not work because structurally woman have nothing comparable in experience to Jews. On the other hand the male gender is very much like the Jewish experience. People look at Jews and say two contradictions: Jews are successful and also they hate the Jews. How can this happen that Jews as a group can both be statistically triumphant in their success and also experience hardship on the way up? Look no further then the male sex for the answer. Men have a problem staying employed. Multiply that with a mancession and you see a fascinating dichotomy. Men are both the highest wage earners and the sex that is most likely to be unemployed... very much like Jews (a patriarchal belief system). America's ability to end our economic woes and America's abuse of Jews and Men are tied together because they share an experience. Women can get a job easily due to pink collar growth in the service sector, but men are on the streets. A Jew has a very hard time getting a job, but then a Jew is statistically more likely to get a top position. Instead of following the Barbara Ehrenreich formula and attacking Wallmart for hiring too many men to top positions or the Ron Paul formula of pointing out all the Jews who come out of Goldman Sachs, What really needs to happen is there needs to be a concerted effort to fight discrimination on the ground level. If a man or a Jew can not get a peon job at a cash register or trying data entry then these people will take actions to educated themselves so that they do not face more hardship. And perhaps this is why there is so much Antisemitism in progressive forums because their solution is always in blaming success when in fact the hatred of the winners is what makes the winners. Instead of looking in envy at a circumcised penis it is time for women and the progressives to allow men in their circles. The women, femmes and those who fit in to societies philosophical norm have created their own pain by not letting us in the door.

The Jews in the Basement

We have an angry Jewish feminist writing about Pamela Waechter. I hear her anger, but she blames Jewish men...

The coming week marks five years since the murder of Pamela Waechter. Who? If the name doesn't ring a bell, here's a brief reminder: She was shot in the head by Naveed Afzal Haq, as she tried to crawl down a flight of stairs and escape, after Haq shot her in the chest.

....Still not jogging your memory? How about this: Waechter was the 58-year-old director of the annual campaign of the Jewish Federation of Seattle. Sometime around 4 PM, on July 28, 2006, Naveed Afzal Haq grabbed a 14-year-old girl and thrust a gun in her back. He used her to gain entry to the Federation, and then rampaged through the building, shooting six women -- Layla Bush, Christina Rexroad, Cheryl Stumbo, Dayna Klein (who was five months pregnant), Carol Goldman, and, fatally, Pamela Waechter. Tammy Kaiser jumped from a second-story window to escape, and was hospitalized with injuries.

Pamela Waechter

What was Haq's motive? Well, here's an interesting clue: As he stormed through the halls, shooting and killing, he shouted, "I'm a Muslim-American! I'm angry at Israel!"

...And yet, the images of the Seattle women under attack are so unbearable that the question must be shrieked from the rooftops: Where are the men?

By Stella Paul via americanthinker.com 

she goes on...

....And the Jewish men are very busy, you see, cowering in the basement.  In 1903, the great poet, Chaim Nachman Bialik, was sent to report on the Kishinev massacre of Jews in Russia.  Bialik was shocked by what he learned of the men's passivity, as their women were raped and murdered before their eyes.  He wrote a searing poem, "The City of Slaughter," excoriating the men hiding in the cellar, who silently watched their loved ones' destruction:

In that dark corner, and behind that cask
Crouched husbands, bridegrooms, brothers, peering from the cracks,
Watching the sacred bodies struggling underneath
The bestial breath,
Stifled in filth, and swallowing their blood!

where are the Jewish men in Seattle five years later? In jail and first amendment rights were taken away... not to mention other rights like right to be read my rights on arrest or right to avoid being a Jew put in a cage with a bunch of skinheads. Physical intimidation to plead guilty. A right to a fair trial when virtually tarred and feathered on the news. told by Muslim guards  named Mohammad before extradition that we can not pray in Hebrew because it is elitist. Of course Palestinian sympathizers couldn't possibly be involved because the judge doesn't believe that has anything to do with it... it isn't like there isn't violence associated with it's sympathizers. and it isn't like as if we might have any documents that just might prove that a non Jew was very preoccupied with what she called, "Nazi Sympathizing Jews". It isn't like as if a woman left it completely vague as to who these Jews were.... maybe the Jews she knew or the Jews she knew in the past? You know? Zionists? But she leaves it vague... leaving it to her listener to attack any Jew. the truth is only the accused know. It couldn't be... that could not of happened... because as we all know... It could not be written about... because how ? ...the right to blog is was taken away from us.  Arrested for writing without a previous arrest. Writing on a private facebook profile. Prior Restraint? It could not be that which happened. There could not of been evidence that a person was insane making the allegations and the authority ignored that anyway. There could not of been evidence that the woman was a stalker.... nah... could not of happened. Should this little excerpt be a reason to arrest again... it may not be this person talking... it might be someone else. How could anyone know the context of all of this? of course they will jump to a conclusion anyway... because we are talking about a man... and we are talking about Washington state... where the ladies have problems with men... how do they expect us to stand up for women when we can't even legally talk about gender online without being censored and arrested? So is this the MAN IN THE GLASS HOUSE? I hear he dresses in the basement.  Washington State men are second class citizens. Yes the ladies get violated... sometimes even killed. And now our rights as men are taken away. We can not stand up for our community if you deny us men fairness because of our gender.

Gender Roles: For Young Boys, Is Pink the New Blue?

We actually created the color scheme that we now define as gender based," Eliot told "GMA." Kids learn that one color is "bad" for them from adults. (abc)

Media really didn't do their homework. Pink for men and Light Blue for women used to be the Norm. Light Blue was a sign of virginity and purity which is the trait preferred. Pink used to be a sign of class. You might say men in Pink is a sign debauchery and an excessive culture of the aristocratic class.

Peace is found through Gender Analysis

For no discernable reason, more Egyptian women and Saudi and Jordanian men accept a Jewish Israel than their gender counterparts, whereas among the Lebanese both sexes rank similarly.
via meforum.org

This data means something that is key to finding peace. Who is the disenchanted class? Gender analysis has the answer. Arabs in power like the Wahabi men are against accepting a Jewish state. Wahabi women are upset with their husbands and are more likely to support Israel. In the Arab streets like in Egypt where you have poor or middle class Arabs looking to move up in the world you have the opposite statistic. Women in Egypt are apt to look to the Arab power source's opinion in Arabia. Elite Arab Women are unhappy with their husbands, but poor Arab women are looking to get in with the rich Wahabis. The key to expanding a Pro Jewish opinion in the Arab world is to expand Western influences among poor Arab men and rich women. The poor Arab male street can be influenced by the media, but real change must happen in the power centers of Islam. Someone once described the early Christian Church as it made it's influence over imperial Rome. First the church was able to reach out to it's disaffected constituents. Rich women were easy to convert to the Church.  The same thing happens in any mass popular movement.  The key to finding peace in the Middle East is for Western men to influence Wahabi women. The violence of Islam can be defused from within. Rich Wahabi women are lonely and feel unloved. That is the source of their dissatisfaction. This is one of the reasons why the Wahabi have so much power over their wives spending. The key to the middle east is to change opinion through their wives till you can modify the opinions of the Wahabi men from within.

Posted via web from noahdavidsimon's posterous