There's Equality & Then There's...

I've got my ear plugs ready and waiting. I suspect that in a couple of weeks or less, the screeches from a large part of the female population, mostly leftists, are going to become painfully loud.

Already, a number of go-along-to-get-along voices on the right are warning Trump to 'tone it down' or 'dial it back'. Unfortunately for them, and fortunately for those of us who don't get upset when he says 'boo', it ain't gonna happen. Trump is going to be Trump and that's why I'll vote for him. Twice if I could.

The deal is, I don't want what the women who constantly rant about 'equality' want in our next president. I want a man with a set leading this country, not a spineless wuss who is likeable.

I have no doubt that these same women do not expect or want Hilliary to be polite and sincere and nice to Trump. You can wager that Hilliary is going to come out and play that woman card for all it's worth, until it's all worn out, and Trump is going to meet her right there, in the middle. She is going to be nasty and unpleasant, she is going to pull out all the stops and do what she's always done when confronted by an adversary. As my hubby would say, and as I agree with him having paid attention to her and her antics for the past twenty-five years or so, she is going to 'bitch out' and it is not going to be pleasant to see.

Based on her approach, Trump is not going to sit back, hold the door and be a 'gentleman'. Trump is going to treat Hilliary exactly as he would treat a male opponent in this upcoming race. It doesn't get more equal than that so all I can and will say to the women who take umbrage at his manner of expression, brace yourselves. It's going to get a whole lot worse than it's been. If you want equality, you are going to get it. In spades and, when it comes, don't you dare complain about it. It's what you've said you want so suck it up and get over it.

You see, my attitude toward him and his rhetoric is simple: I am not dating him. My daughter is not dating him. Neither of us are living with him. He is not someone I cook for, clean for, do laundry for. I don't go home to him at the end of the day, and it's a good thing I don't because I don't like a lot of what he says or the manner in which he says it. Therefore, because I have that arm's length relationship, I do not have to like him.

In my view, that's the difference between 'women' and 'girls'.

Women recognize that we don't have to love or admire the male, that we can take his verbal bullying and coarse actions. We can let it pass over us because we're bigger than the words.

Girls don't get that. They get knickerknotted at the first 'mean' or unpleasant thing someone says - as if it's a personal assault. As if they're that important.

Now, with that said, the flip side is what I do like about him. He has the courage of his convictions. When he thinks he's right, he's ready, willing and able to drive a stake into the ground and say, "here". If he thinks he's right, he's not going to back down and bow to the popular sway of the masses - he will do what he thinks is right. He will also, however (and this is BIG), listen to his advisers. He's done it in his business, which is why his primary business is as successful as it is, and I have every confidence he will when it comes to the presidency. It's already showing in how he's pivoting in this election.

He's no longer using the same inflammatory rhetoric he was a couple of months ago. He's begun making reasoned speeches, using the ever-popular teleprompters so he's sure to stay on message. He's already stated that he wants someone with political cred to be his VP - and that is a very smart move.

When people say that Trump "isn't nice" it annoys me to no end because we are not voting for Prom King in this election. This is not supposed to be a popularity contest. We are not voting for Nicest Dude or Cleanest Mouth or Most Polite in Company. We are voting for a leader - someone who is going to take his place on the world stage, nominally at the head of the table. We do not need a "nice guy" who's going to wring his hands and waffle at every bad turn. We need someone decisive, someone who is going to put our interests first, for a change. We need someone with the stones to go toe-to-toe with the bad actors on this planet and out-bully them - not back down and cower in a corner someplace. Although I'm not entirely sure the Oval Office has corners...

All I hope is that the first wave of cacophony from the scorched females in this country won't deafen me at the outset, that I'll have time to get the earplugs in place before the second caterwaul.

Now - have a lovely and quiet day.

Best~
Philippa

Follow me on Twitter:

Oh Just Grow A Pair Already

Since the 1970's, when I was in my early teens, I have been hearing women crying for 'equality' across the spectrum.

In my view, 'equality' is a myth. No one of us will be 'equal' to anyone else - it's not possible because of so many variables.

As part of the campaign for 'equality', the National Organization for Women (NOW) was created. Initially, as all such organizations do, they had a big tent and a broad (no pun intended) base. Then, as always happens, politics poked its nose under the tent flap, pushed its way in and took over.

Now, the women crying for equality are just as unlikely to play fair and equal as their male counterparts. If a liberal woman comes under fire, they put on the warpaint and sally forth to defend the poor unfortunate's virtue.

However, if a conservative woman or any woman perceived to have right-of-center leanings comes out against... oh, let's say Bill Clinton, these individuals who demand "equality" give the lie to their stance. They remain remarkably silent. I have seen it happen again and again.

Remember Paula Jones and Juanita Broddrick when they accused Bill Clinton of sexual impropriety and rape, respectively? Crickets drowned out the NOW gang's protests. Those crickets got so loud, they scared the NOW gang back into their tent and those protests against Bill Clinton never took place. Instead, the NOW gang rallied behind Hilliary who stood by her man and used a staffer's flip 'bimbo eruption' label to tarnish the women who claimed her husband had abused them. Yeah, now there's a classic case of 'equality'.

What's sick-funnier still is that now, while Hilliary is out on the campaign trail, she's telling women that if they've been abused, they have the 'right' to be heard and believed. But that's okay, it's just another example of Hilliary's inability to tell the truth or be consistent.

When Anita Hill accused Clarence Thomas of sexually harassing her, the NOW protesters were out in force. She was a poor mistreated woman and he was an evil conservative. Never mind that testimony throughout the affair in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee showed that one of them was lying - it never became clear which, but Thomas took a seat on the Supreme Court and she is wherever she is.

More recently,I have been listening to all the cries about Donald Trump's 'unfair' treatment of women. And then, looking for something else, I came across this article:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/donald-trump-a-champion-of-women-his-female-employees-think-so/2015/11/23/7eafac80-88da-11e5-9a07-453018f9a0ec_story.html

Which says, in part:

But many women who have worked closely with Trump say he was a corporate executive ahead of his time in providing career advancement for women. While some say he could be boorish, his companies nurtured and pro­moted women in an otherwise male-dominated industry. Several women said they appreciated how Trump granted them entry to a new playing field.

“From the standpoint of being a woman, I just thought he was phenomenal,” said Sunshine, 74. “So supportive and encouraging. . . . He gave me the ropes, and I could either hang myself or prove myself.”

And then there's this from the Daily Caller:

Appearing on “CNN’s New Day” with Chris Cuomo, Michael Cohen, Trump’s general counsel and an executive vice president at Trump Organization, said that while the billionaire’s companies employ 57 percent men and 43 percent women, “there are more female executives at the Trump Organization than there are male.”

"And women who are similarly situated in positions similar to that of their male counterparts, are actually paid more,” Cohen said.

 http://dailycaller.com/2015/08/17/attorney-trump-companies-employ-more-female-execs-than-male-video/

Yet another one:

Heilbron did not return repeated requests for an interview, but Res and Sprague both described Trump as a supportive boss who gave them a shot in an industry that was particularly unwelcoming to women.

“When I first started at this, I’d find nasty drawings of myself on the job site, and men would try to intimidate me by peeing on the girders,” says Res of the years right around the time she met Trump.

Which makes it all the more striking, she says, that he hired her for his signature project, because he liked the way she stood up to the men when he was working for another builder. This was before his bodyguards, his bestselling books, and his comb-over, Res says, back when there were just six people in the entire Trump Organization, back when Trump drove his own limo to Res’ father’s funeral because the chauffeur was off that day. Overnight Res went from earning $25,000 as an assistant supervisor to $55,000 as vice president. She had never run a project before, but “he told me he knew I could” build Trump Tower, she says.

http://news.yahoo.com/whats-up-with-donald-trump-and-the-women-not-090043983.html

So here we have documentation that Trump treats his women employees fairly. He pays them comparably to and sometimes more than their male counterparts. He 'promoted women in an otherwise male-dominated industry'. So where's the problem? Is it because he also treats them equally as 'one of the guys'?

Apparently that is the problem because while they reaped the benefit of his even-handedness in his businesses, not all of his women employees appreciate his remarks or behavior. Barbara Res, one of the women quoted in the first and last article didn't appreciate it at all. Enough that she's voting for Hilliary (assuming that one doesn't get indicted).

Still, let's give credit where it's due. At a time when women in this country were scratching and clawing for every level upward toward 'equality', Trump was reaching down and lifting capable, qualified and able women up.

While women are screaming about how horribly Donald Trump treats women, they are demanding equality across the board while, at the same time, they're pushing a "women's agenda".

Now, come on, girls - which way do you want it? You cannot have it all ways - you have to pick one way and either continue whining when someone says 'boo' to you, or you have to grow a pair. So let's ask the foundational questions:

1) Do you want someone like Trump who has a proven track record of hiring, developing, nurturing and promoting women, and who treats them like an equal (one of the guys)?

2) Or, do you want some half-assed girly-man 'in touch with his feelings' who talks about equality but doesn't do a thing to move it forward?

Trump is not going to change just because you whine and cry. He is who he is and he is how he is. He's a guy. He embodies prototypical guy-ness - the locker room, jocular, crude and unapologetic guy-ness.

And that's just fine with me and with other grown-up women like me. I don't necessarily like what he says, and even if he said it to or about me it wouldn't faze me. Why? Because I am a woman. I am a big person, all grown up and I recognize that he's and ass and I'm not.

So you go on. If you cannot accept the man as he is, you go on ahead and crawl under the covers, suck your thumb, hug your teddy bear and cry yourself to sleep for the unfairness of it all.

Me? I'm going to keep on thinking he's an ass, a loud-mouth boor who hasn't a clue how to think before he speaks, and listening to all else he has to say because, while I don't like the behavior, I do like the man.

Best~
Philippa

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories

Arrogance & Division

I have seen and heard several examples of arrogance in the past twenty-four hours. I’m not looking for it, or paying attention. Today I spent most of my time writing and posting one of my stories up on WriteOn. I played Farm Heroes and Bubble Witch. I didn’t sit in front of the television and watch or on my computer and browse. These things just popped up.

On Scribblers, one person declared Friday’s Planned Parenthood shooting a “terrorist” attack, even though no one from the police, FBI or media had or has called it that. That declarative statement is pretty arrogant – an ‘I know what no one else does’ declaration.

This morning I was watching CNN while I fixed and ate my breakfast. They were talking about the Syrian refugees and the fact that a lot of Americans don’t want people who might include a small subset of violent people to be let into the country without proper vetting. Our State Department and FBI and a bunch of other law enforcement and security agencies have warned the government that we can’t vet these people because the systems aren’t in place to do it. Yet, because the Republicans in the House and Senate want to slow the process down and make sure we take reasonable precaution, one of CNN’s talking heads declared that “the GOP is jingoistic”. What? That’s a trait exclusive to the GOP and no one on the left is? No one registered as a Democrat sees the need to check these people before we let them into our country? Nope. Apparently not because this individual seems to know what is in the hearts and minds of everyone who happens to affiliate themselves more closely with the GOP than the Democrats.

Individually, these are small things but they’re coming more often and it’s disturbing if you think about it. It adds to the mind and thought control – you must think this way or you’re “evil” – and divisive nature of discourse.

The Scribblers comment obviously wasn’t considered. It was a word that’s in common use and the larger underlying meaning wasn’t taken into consideration when it was used. However, is anyone who does something evil automatically going to be labeled a ‘terrorist’ from now on? What about the declarations made by some in the Black Lives Matter group?

"Pigs in a blanket, fry 'em like bacon!" was one chant that was quickly and deliberately ignored by the leftwing media. Searching for the following clip, only Fox seems to have carried it on their broadcast.

Another was "What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want 'em? Now!"

That was a few months ago and the liberal media rushed to cover it up - whitewash over it - and it’s been a while since we’ve heard about that, but the declaration was made – why wasn’t that labeled a “terrorist threat”? Or if that’s not palatable, how about a less powerful label – “hate speech”?

Oh! I know. Like duh! It’s because it was uttered by some black Americans.

Because the vocal minority insists that the rest of America “owes” something to blacks for historic events that took place more than one-hundred fifty years ago. African Americans get a pass. They can do and say anything and white Americans are supposed to look away and not comment because, since we happen to have been born with white skin, we’re supposed to feel guilty.

Now that raises, in my mind, the question of where is the equality in that? If people – an individual, a group or a segment of society wants to be respected and treated as an equal, they have to abide by the same rules and meet the same standard as everyone else, or they’re not equal.

The CNN comment is just another example of the arrogance of American media – and it is not restricted to the “left” outlets – NBC and its subsidiaries, ABC and its subsidiaries and CNN. It also includes Fox News which has an agenda all its own.

They suppress stories and “Fair and Balanced” is nowhere in sight anymore. Listen to their talking heads and it’s all a very rightwing slant.

CNN has declared that if we don't want to let anyone and everyone who wants to come across our borders in without checking their backgrounds and trying to discern whether they're coming in to do us harm, we're jingoists.
 

I’m not looking for this stuff. I have other things to do, other things I’m thinking about. But it’s just popped up into my awareness which tells me that it’s probably happening a lot if I were to pay attention.

So what does it mean? I don’t know, but it is worrying.

We have a President who advocates special treatment of black over white and giving a pass to black people.

Remember Ferguson? Obama came out and added his voice to those declaring the cop was in the wrong. But when black people started rioting through the streets, burning businesses and wreaking havoc, nothing was said by our “leader” or his Attorney General, Eric Holder. In the end, the evidence showed the officer was well within his rights to shoot Michael Brown since Brown was trying to get the officer's handgun and he was afraid for his life and was defending himself. Obama spoke out against the shooting but was deafeningly silent on the rioters.

It was the same with Baltimore, and the same with Trayvon Martin in Florida. Obama didn't wait for the evidence in either case. Black person assaulted by white? Don't wait for the investigation. Don't wait until the evidence is in. Just declare the light skinned person was in the wrong and the dark skinned people who are burning cities are just fine. Persecute the light skinned person but give the darker skinned person a pass, no matter what they did.

Now understand me here. I look at people as people. I do not care one whit what color of skin or eyes or hair they have. I look at their behavior - what they do and how they act.

Personally, I think Barack Obama is a dangerous incompetent who looks on the presidency as an on-going golf vacation.

I think John Roberts is a manipulated fool, a tool of the left who hasn’t the first foggiest clue about what his role on the United States Supreme Court is supposed to be.

I admire, greatly, Clarence Thomas, Ben Carson, Alan Keyes, and J.J. Watt.

I despise Hilliary Clinton and John Kerry. Two more unqualified people would be hard to find. Their positions are purely and simply the result of political award ceremonies.

In the case of Hilliary, I am utterly convinced it was a conversation between her and the Democrat party back in 2007 that went something like:

“Drop out of the presidential race and let the black guy win, and you can be Secretary of State. Then, in a few years, we (the DNC) will do everything we can to put you into the oval office.”

"Oh, okay."

To distill this further, anyone who expects, demands or promotes special treatment of one group over another warrants my disgust. Anyone, an individual or a group who promotes or advocates special treatment of one group over another is destructive and ensures equality will never be achieved.

Unfortunately, and worrying to me, is the fact that the divisions appearing in this country are growing and I don’t know that anyone or anything can stop them from spreading. Every time I turn on the “news” – the talking heads who offer opinion and commentary instead of reporting – it’s obvious. Just listen to what’s said, how it’s phrased the meaning of the words spoken.

What we need going forward is honest conversation, respectful and a clear understanding of what is 'fair and balanced'.  Otherwise we'll have to get a boatload of epoxy filler and hope it all holds together.

Think before speaking and stand up to correct those who create division - if we start small, we can move mountains!

Have a lovely day.

Best~

Philippa

Follow me on Twitter: https://twitter.com/PhilippaStories