Originally published at David Horowitz’s NewsReal Blog
____________

Forget the nanny state.  New York is well on its way to becoming the nanny-less state.

The Domestic Workers’ Bill of Rights passed by the New York State Senate earlier this month is being sold as a package of workplace protections for nannies, housekeepers, and other domestic employees.  But is the legislation really a human rights victory for low-wage women or is it a job-killer likely to burden both domestic workers and the families who employ them?

Labor unions and community organizers say the bill is a social justice measure designed to bring fair labor standards to poor women, immigrant women, women of color, and of course, poor immigrant women of color. Among the “protections” families will be required to provide for their household employees:

• A half dozen paid holidays per year.
• Five paid vacation days per year.
• Seven paid sick days per year.
• Time and a half after eight hours of work each day.
• Two weeks of severance pay (or two weeks’ written notice).

All full time domestic workers will receive the same benefits regardless of immigration status or whether they are paid on the books. In addition, the legislation opens up the possibility of collective bargaining for domestic workers.

“Finally, ‘the help’ may get some help,” gushed an editorial in The Journal News.  “Who can argue against that?” asked writer Claudia Deutsch.

Actually, it’s pretty easy to argue against a bill that imposes huge new financial burdens on families, especially when it comes during an economic recession so bad that New York state government might shut down.

It’s simple. When it becomes more costly to employ nannies in New York, fewer families will hire them.  Some parents will make do with part time help or switch to institutional daycare.  Others will move out of state or stop working outside the home.  Desperate lawmakers are convinced they’ve found one more way to squeeze New Yorkers to fund unsustainable entitlement and pension programs.  But eventually there’s nothing left to squeeze.

As with minimum wage laws, these mandatory benefits and high administration costs will lead to increased unemployment.  The very workers the bill purports to protect will suffer. And there’s no indication these measures will improve working conditions or prevent exploitation and abuse.

But none of that matters to the bill’s endorsers. The list is a virtual tour of the organized Left that includes AFL-CIO, the New York Civil Liberties Union, Domestic Workers United,  SEIU, Gloria Steinem, Socialist Party USA, Students for a Democratic Society, and Working Families Party (an ACORN front group).

Another supporter is Frances Fox Piven, one of the sociologists responsible for the Alinsky-inspired Cloward-Piven strategy to intentionally collapse the welfare system and usher in a socialist revolution.  Hmm. What interest could Piven possibly have in legislation that’s likely to put domestic employees out of work and onto the public dole?  I’m guessing her involvement has nothing to do with a lifelong admiration of nannies.

One of the lead organizers pushing the Domestic Workers’ Bill of Rights is Ai-Jen Poo, a co-founder of Domestic Workers United.  Her mission as a community organizer is “to build a base that has the power to drive a real progressive agenda that’s to the left of what the Democratic Party is willing to settle for.”  And it’s worth noting her strategy:

We need to build stronger connections between the social movements and the labor movement.… That means that we need to understand and engage with labor’s agenda, and we also need to push labor to take on social justice issues from the various vantage-points that the working class experiences them.

Ah, yes, social justice organizers scratching Big Labor’s back and vice versa. What a shock.  But what of the nannies, eldercare workers, and housekeepers?  Who will scratch their backs (and pay their union dues) once they’ve outlived their usefulness as pawns in the Left’s class war?

Read more of my work at NewsReal or follow me on Twitter.

Jenny, Lori Ziganto, and I discussed female genital mutilation (FGM), faux feminism, whether we should care if a woman is nominated to the Supreme Court, and our favorite South Carolina gubernatorial candidate Nikki Haley.  There may have also been some uncomfortable talk about girl parts and boy parts.  Good times!

Click here to listen.

From my May 8, 2010 piece at NewsReal Blog:

There is no limit to the depravity of the cultists who worship at the altar of multiculturalism.

100 to 140 million girls and women around the world have been subjected to genital mutilation. And now, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) is embracing this barbaric expression of misogyny in the name of cultural sensitivity and immigrant outreach.

Equality Now is stunned by a new policy statement issued by the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), which essentially promotes female genital mutilation (FGM) and advocates for “federal and state laws [to] enable pediatricians to reach out to families by offering a ‘ritual nick’,” such as pricking or minor incisions of girls’ clitorises.

Surely pediatricians sworn to do no harm wouldn’t advocate a medically unnecessary practice rooted firmly in hatred of women. Equality Now must have misread the AAP’s statement on FGM, right?

Wrong. According to the AAP:

Most forms of FGC are decidedly harmful, and pediatricians should decline to perform them, even in the absence of any legal constraints. However, the ritual nick suggested by some pediatricians is not physically harmful and is much less extensive than routine newborn male genital cutting. There is reason to believe that offering such a compromise may build trust between hospitals and immigrant communities, save some girls from undergoing disfiguring and life-threatening procedures in their native countries, and play a role in the eventual eradication of FGC. It might be more effective if federal and state laws enabled pediatricians to reach out to families by offering a ritual nick as a possible compromise to avoid greater harm.

Hey, let’s compromise!  We can also reach out to the Muslim community and ask men to commit honor “nicking” instead of honor murder.  It’s a win-win. They get to continue violently victimizing women under the guise of preserving “honor,” and we get to hold hands and sing “Kumbaya.” What’s a little broken skin as long as we’re avoiding “greater harm”?

The AAP statement also compares physician-assisted ritual puncturing of girls’ genitals to ear piercing.  Ear piercing.

And apparently the AAP is concerned about the unintended consequences of continuing to prosecute people for “female genital cutting” (Newspeak for FGM):

Some physicians, including pediatricians who work closely with immigrant populations in which FGC is the norm, have voiced concern about the adverse effects of criminalization of the practice on educational efforts.

Go ahead and scream or puke or tear your hair out. I’ll wait.

Promoting a less extreme version of genital mutilation as a replacement for the horrors of clitoridectomy, excision, and infibulation is door we must never open in America.  This is ground we cannot cede.

And by “we” I refer to authentic feminists, not the Left’s faux-feminist misogyny apologists like Amanda Marcotte (h/t The Other McCain):

I don’t really see the problem with the American Academy of Pediatrics advising doctors to offer a “ritual nick” in lieu of the more serious forms of female circumcision that are often on offer in some other parts of the world. The practice is something that is done in modern places that want to have a link to tradition without actually doing any real harm to little girls, from what I understand. All they do is prick your genitals, or make a small cut that heals over, but nothing is removed. You’re basically scratching the girl. It’s not awesome . . . but comparing it to more severe forms of female circumcision troubles me.

. . . .

And it’s not like Western culture is so free of blatantly misogynist traditions, either.  Part of me wishes that we had a two minute nicking at the doctor instead of the entire painfully misogynist wedding tradition that persists in the name of tradition.

Ritual laceration of the genitals doesn’t do “any real harm to little girls”?  Really?  Perpetuating the idea that women’s sexuality is an evil that needs to be suppressed or destroyed doesn’t do “any real harm”?

No, Amanda.  Misogyny masquerading as a minor out-patient procedure is still misogyny.  This medically supervised clitoral “nicking” still invites the continued importation of toxic, dangerous practices; it sends the unthinkable message that fear of cultural insensitivity makes it desirable to betray young girls.

It’s unacceptable.

If carnivores eat meat, what exactly do femivores eat?

Fortunately, it’s not what you think.  Forget any mental images of Don Juan meets Leatherface and let me translate from New York Timesese to English. Femivores are highly educated, feminist stay-at-home moms who embrace outdoorsy domesticity like growing organic vegetables and raising chickens.

Basically, they’re chicks with chicks.

But a rural housewife who builds her own chicken coop and cans vegetables from her garden wouldn’t capture the attention of the New York Times, and she certainly wouldn’t qualify as a femivore.  According to writer Peggy Orenstein, the femivore’s natural habitat is Berkeley.  And she isn’t a housewife out of necessity, but by choice.

One of the reasons femivores keep chickens is to distinguish themselves from other housewives.  They legitimize their desire to be homemakers by politicizing the act. Every freshly hatched egg is a political and environmental statement.

Femivorism is grounded in the very principles of self-sufficiency, autonomy and personal fulfillment that drove women into the work force in the first place. Given how conscious (not to say obsessive) everyone has become about the source of their food — who these days can’t wax poetic about compost? — it also confers instant legitimacy. Rather than embodying the limits of one movement, femivores expand those of another: feeding their families clean, flavorful food; reducing their carbon footprints; producing sustainably instead of consuming rampantly. What could be more vital, more gratifying, more morally defensible?

For these women, it isn’t enough to make choices that suit your family and reflect your values; you have to agonize over the eco-feminist implications (and have the backyard chicken coop to prove it.) This movement, if it can even be called that, isn’t about true self-sufficiency. It’s about “progressive” women going just a little bit regressive to create the illusion of self-reliance.

[Continued at NewsReal - please click here to read the whole thing.]

I Now Pronounce You Wusband and Hife
The editor-in-chief of a women’s lifestyle site is so fearful of gender stereotypes in marriage that she’s decided to abolish the terms husband and wife. I’m not joking, and neither is she.

Obama is Not What a Feminist Looks Like
On International Women’s Day, the president had plenty of time for shout-outs to celebrities and Communist activists.  But when it came to voicing his support for the struggles of women outside the United States, President Obama had nothing to say.

More to follow.

Grose blames cultural conservatism and neo-Victorian morality for the latest iteration of what she calls “the shame cycle,” an era of sexual regret among women who participate in casual flings. Internalized conservative values, it seems, are forcing women to end their delightfully liberating one-night stands with the dreaded walk of shame, causing many to consider more chaste lifestyles.

The five or six celebrities and authors Grose says have jumped on the chastity bandwagon are hardly evidence of a cyclical phenomenon. But even if we are entering a period in which women are rejecting their inner Girls Gone Wild, why the blame game?

Shouldn’t genuine feminists celebrate women seizing their sexual destinies? Or is embracing your inner hoochie the only path to sexual freedom?

Grose answers that question by linking approvingly to a quote from Feministing.com: it is a “feminist duty to 1) seek pleasure and feel entitled to it and 2) to make the world a more orgasmic place for other women.”

Got that, ladies? If you’re not out there hooking up with every passing fancy, you’re shirking your feminist responsibilities.  You owe it to your comrades!  Is it any wonder that Feministing founder Jessica Valenti made an abstinent college student cry during a lecture on the myth of purity?

The problem with viewing sex as a “feminist duty” is that it muddies the waters between the personal and political in a way that is ultimately damaging to men and women alike. When casual sex is a feminist act, it’s a political act, not a personal, sensual one. And having sex out of a sense of political duty is disturbingly antithetical to the notion of sexual freedom.

Please visit NewsReal Blog to read the rest.

Here’s what I wrote at NewsReal:

In 2009, Ileana Jiménez asked her class of high school juniors and seniors to write letters to President Obama about “the ways in which feminism might be addressed in the curriculum.”  Earlier this week she shared one letter on her blog, Feminist Teacher.

It is understandable that teachers cannot be expected to cram decades of struggles into 12 years of study. I just feel that there should be more time in the curriculum starting in the lower grades (if they can learn about the slave trade, they can learn about feminism) dedicated to learning about feminism and the goals behind it.

To do that, I propose that by fourth grade, students be exposed to basic feminist ideas.

Note that the student’s interest isn’t in ensuring that women’s experiences are adequately represented in history texts.  She’s proposing the indoctrination of nine-year-old children into a political movement.

She doesn’t define “basic feminist ideas,” but here’s a list of the top priorities of a representative feminist group, the National Organization for Women:

1. abortion rights/reproductive issues
2. violence against women
3. constitutional equality
4. promoting diversity/ending racism
5. lesbian rights
6. economic justice

How many of those “basic feminist ideas” would you teach to a fourth grader?

Visit NewsReal to read the rest of my thoughts on this kid’s letter.

Last week, noted feminist Keith Olbermann implied that the women of Fox News are only hired because they’re attractive.  In response, The Daily Caller’s Jim Treacher posted a photo gallery of women who work for MSNBC. When he got to Rachel Maddow, Treacher wrote, “Whoops, how did that one get in there? Sorry, man. I mean dude. I mean Rachel! Sorry, Rachel.”

Similar jokes have appeared in a column by Treacher’s colleague Matt Labash, prompting a writer at Jezebel to lecture “Tucker Carlson’s minions” that they must never, ever suggest that a woman looks masculine in appearance.

Making fun of women for looking or acting mannish is a time-honored way of belittling them, of trying to keep women out of both men’s clothes and men’s roles, and just because the woman in question is an out lesbian doesn’t mean jokes about her aren’t part of this misogynist tradition.

But if a Jezebel writer wants to insult Ann Coulter’s femininity? Oh, that’s totally cool:

Ann Coulter Finally Explains What’s Behind That Adam’s Apple

Please visit NewsReal to read the rest.

There are facts, and then there are feminist facts.  Here’s an example:

Fact: Scott Brown is a white male who drives a pickup truck and won the Massachusetts special election.

Feminist fact: Scott Brown won the Massachusetts special election because he’s a white male who drives a pickup truck.

Can’t you picture the GMC warning labels? Caution: you’re driving a tool of the phallocracy.

You can read the rest at NewsReal.

Boiling the entire Coakley/Brown race down to gender bias is not only shallow, disingenuous political analysis, but it deprives women candidates of the ability to sink or swim on their own merits.  Of course, that hasn’t stopped others from piling on with variations on the sexism theme.

In addition to the examples cited in my NewsReal piece, a POLITICO article about the “impenetrable” glass ceiling in Massachusetts decried “how mind-bending the gender dynamics in this campaign were.”  And in The Daily Beast, James Carroll wrote that “Martha Coakley was croaked by an electorate that could not get past her gender” in “Misogynist Massachusetts.”

When gender disparity is your bread and butter, that’s what an election post-mortem looks like.  So I was pleasantly surprised to see a smarter, saner analysis of Coakley’s loss at Salon’s Broadsheet:

But, as a lefty feminist, I’m calling B.S.  It isn’t so simple, and suggesting otherwise is dangerous.

It takes willful blindness to argue that Coakley’s loss was chiefly the result of anything other than a crappy campaign.

Clearly Coakley didn’t lose because she was the female candidate.  But her crappy campaign wasn’t the biggest factor either.  She lost because she represented everything the majority of Massachusetts residents detest about the Democrats’ agenda. And she lost because immoral, politically motivated decisions she made as a prosecutor came back to haunt her.

So does Massachusetts have a problem electing women to office?

The Commonwealth ranks 18th in electing women to positions in the state legislature. That leaves room for improvement, but it hardly merits the “Misogynist Massachusetts” slur.  And crying sexism because the better man wasn’t a woman is simply counterproductive.

Democratic consultant Karen Finney called the Stupak amendment “an attack on our personal freedom and liberty as guaranteed by the constitution.” Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA) said the amendment “attempts to dictate to women how to spend their own money.” And liberal columnist Michelle Goldberg lamented, “Health-insurance reform was supposed to end the sort of hideous cruelties our system inflicts on patients, not create them.”

To call Finney, Lee, and Goldberg tone deaf would be a grand understatement.

The only reason the abortion restrictions in the Stupak amendment are so intrusive is because health care reform is so intrusive. When we increase the role of government in health care, our freedoms and choices become more vulnerable to politics. Period.

Funding for every aspect of the doctor-patient relationship, every medical test and procedure, and every health care guideline becomes susceptible to pressure from special interest groups and moral scrutiny by taxpayers.  If guys who can’t get it up have enough money to throw around, erectile dysfunction drugs make the cut.  If taxpayers think acupuncturists are predatory quacks, no reimbursement for them. And after the reconciled bill is signed by the president, an unelected body will make these decisions for all of us.

Liberals cheered when President Obama appointed an executive pay czar, reasoning that companies like AIG have no right to determine pay packages if taxpayers are footing the bill.  But somehow they missed the obvious lesson.  There are always strings attached to government handouts.

Welcome, liberals, to the hazards of government subsidy.  Either private insurance is restricted by health care reform, as with the Stupak provisions, or abortion receives some form of federal funding, thus changing the status quo.  There’s no in between.

Objectionable restrictions abound when we seek increased state participation in our lives through regulation or subsidy.  Just ask members of a United Methodist Church group that refused to make a beachfront pavilion available to a lesbian couple for a civil union ceremony.  The group lost its state property tax exemption for failing to make the venue available to everyone on an equal basis.  But that’s how it works: if you want state subsidies, you have to play by the state’s rules.

We’ve seen the impact on coverage in states that are experimenting with models of universal health care.  In Massachusetts, legal immigrants no longer have state-subsidized coverage for dental, hospice, and skilled nursing care. And if you’re a Medicaid patient, prisoner, or public employee in Washington state, don’t expect your government to cough up the cash for knee arthroscopy for osteoarthritis – it’s one of several treatments no longer covered.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said that “the power of Congress to regulate health care is essentially unlimited.”  Do liberals really believe that those regulations will exist to make their wildest dreams come true, now and forever?

When you invite the government to become more deeply involved in health care, you’re also inviting greater government interference in personal choice. Medical decisions become political decisions. That’s how it works, and it’s why philosophical opposition to the growth of government isn’t the crazy-eyed wingnuttery progressives make it out to be.

Proponents of liberal health care reform deliberately lured a bloodthirsty vampire over their thresholds, and now they’re shocked – SHOCKED – to find they have fangs buried deep in their necks.  I’m not one to blame the victim, but it sounds like they might be getting exactly what they were asking for.