The Smarter Darren Bernard

I'll bet she'll later say we took this out of context or it was only a joke:

Earlier this week, Ann Coulter told The New York Observer that she believes women shouldn’t have the right to vote:

If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another Democrat president. It’s kind of a pipe dream, it’s a personal fantasy of mine, but I don’t think it’s going to happen. And it is a good way of making the point that women are voting so stupidly, at least single women.

It also makes the point, it is kind of embarrassing, the Democratic Party ought to be hanging its head in shame, that it has so much difficulty getting men to vote for it. I mean, you do see it’s the party of women and “We’ll pay for health care and tuition and day care — and here, what else can we give you, soccer moms?�

Why does this, this, woman (boy, that took some effort) have a media platform to begin with?

Posted by Gad at 5:29 AM | Permalink | Comments (1)

Congress today passed a bill that would reverse the Alito Court's infamous ruling on Ledbetter vs. Goodyear. Bush has threatened to veto the bill that protects against pay discrimination.

And along the mainstream media landscape, crickets are chirping.

(via Atrios)

Posted by Gad at 9:12 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

In another time when people like me aren't so irony fatigued, we might take concern and actively engage retrograde commentaries. Nowadays all we can do is just point and laugh.

Posted by Gad at 1:06 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

If you are a woman and you just LOOOOVE being paid less than men for the exact same type of work, vote for Bush and approve of his wingnut Supreme Court picks:

WASHINGTON, May 29 — The Supreme Court on Tuesday made it harder for many workers to sue their employers for discrimination in pay, insisting in a 5-to-4 decision on a tight time frame to file such cases. The dissenters said the ruling ignored workplace realities.

The decision came in a case involving a supervisor at a Goodyear Tire plant in Gadsden, Ala., the only woman among 16 men at the same management level, who was paid less than any of her colleagues, including those with less seniority. She learned that fact late in a career of nearly 20 years — too late, according to the Supreme Court’s majority.

The court held on Tuesday that employees may not bring suit under the principal federal anti-discrimination law unless they have filed a formal complaint with a federal agency within 180 days after their pay was set. The timeline applies, according to the decision, even if the effects of the initial discriminatory act were not immediately apparent to the worker and even if they continue to the present day.

. . .Workplace experts said the ruling would have broad ramifications and would narrow the legal options of many employees.

In an opinion by Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr., the majority rejected the view of the federal agency, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, that each paycheck that reflects the initial discrimination is itself a discriminatory act that resets the clock on the 180-day period, under a rule known as “paycheck accrual.�

“Current effects alone cannot breathe life into prior, uncharged discrimination,� Justice Alito said in an opinion joined by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas. Justice Thomas once headed the employment commission, the chief enforcer of workers’ rights under the statute at issue in this case, usually referred to simply as Title VII.

Under its longstanding interpretation of the statute, the commission actively supported the plaintiff, Lilly M. Ledbetter, in the lower courts. But after the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case last June, the Bush administration disavowed the agency’s position and filed a brief on the side of the employer.

Compassionate conservatism in action.

Posted by Gad at 12:58 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

In case you people haven't noticed, I am black. My online experience has been pretty good (otherwise, I wouldn't have wasted this much time in cyberspace) until I reveal myself as a black man in online discussions. Then the racists and other whites who think they know better will start rolling in, dismissing my point of view and hurling all sorts of sickening things at me.

And do you know what? Fuck em. They do that shit to get a rise out of you, and if you ignore them and don't let them get to you, they don't need to be a problem.

Feministing has just recently taken down an interview she did with a black feminist blogger who writes under the pseudonym Nubian because the latter was dismayed over the number of hateful responses the post has gotten from those same troglodytes who live to do that sort of thing. Well, I'm glad she no longer has to worry her fragile little head over the fact that black people have known since their birth: that racists exists and they happen to take their shots at blacks. Christ, where would we be if the likes of her populated the civil rights movement, in which being cussed at by anonymous douchebags was the LEAST of the problem blacks active during that time had to face?

Feminist bloggers have had to deal with mysogynist dickheads all the time (e.g. see the types of e-mails Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon received after she left the Edward's campaign). It's unfortunate but it comes with the territory. Blacks who blog about racial issue will have to deal with racists online as well.

Nubian, in an ironic attempt to insult someone who respected her opinions enough to give it a wider airing, says she does not call herself a feminist anymore. That is just as well, because real feminsts do not cower away whenever some idiot says "bitch" or "nigger." Real feminists do this:

On Monday, March 3, 1913, clad in a white cape astride a white horse, lawyer Inez Milholland led the great woman suffrage parade down Pennsylvania Avenue in the nation's capital. Behind her stretched a long line with nine bands, four mounted brigades, three heralds, about twenty-four floats, and more than 5,000 marchers.

. . .The procession began late, but all went well for the first few blocks [picture]. Soon, however, the crowds, mostly men in town for the following day's inauguration of Woodrow Wilson, surged into the street making it almost impossible for the marchers to pass. Occasionally only a single file could move forward. Women were jeered, tripped, grabbed, shoved, and many heard “indecent epithets� and “barnyard conversation.� Instead of protecting the parade, the police “seemed to enjoy all the ribald jokes and laughter and part participated in them.� One policeman explained that they should stay at home where they belonged. The men in the procession heard shouts of “Henpecko� and “Where are your skirts?� As one witness explained, “There was a sort of spirit of levity connected with the crowd. They did not regard the affair very seriously.�

But to the women, the event was very serious. Helen Keller [picture] “was so exhausted and unnerved by the experience in attempting to reach a grandstand . . . that she was unable to speak later at Continental hall [sic ].� Two ambulances “came and went constantly for six hours, always impeded and at times actually opposed, so that doctor and driver literally had to fight their way to give succor to the injured�. One hundred marchers were taken to the local Emergency Hospital. Before the afternoon was over, Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson, responding to a request from the chief of police, authorized the use of a troop of cavalry from nearby Fort Myer to help control the crowd.

And don't get me started on what the black civil rights activists have to deal with. It's safe to say that they didn't have time or the luxury for thin skins.

Posted by Gad at 3:46 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)