web analytics
a

Facebook

Twitter

Copyright 2015 Libero Themes.
All Rights Reserved.

8:30 - 6:00

Our Office Hours Mon. - Fri.

703-406-7616

Call For Free 15/M Consultation

Facebook

Twitter

Search
Menu

BREAKING: Trans Activist Jessica Yaniv Loses Court Battle Against Estheticians That Wouldn’t Wax His Genitals

Westlake Legal Group 260c0824-7cf2-4300-873d-0b4f8bf402c4-620x317 BREAKING: Trans Activist Jessica Yaniv Loses Court Battle Against Estheticians That Wouldn’t Wax His Genitals Women transgender Politics men LGBT jessica yaniv Human Rights Front Page Stories court case Canada Allow Media Exception

FILE – In this May 17, 2016 file photo, a new sticker is placed on the door at the ceremonial opening of a gender neutral bathroom at Nathan Hale High School in Seattle. A government official says the Trump administration will revoke guidelines that say transgender students should be allowed to use bathrooms and locker rooms matching their chosen gender identity. (AP Photo/Elaine Thompson, File)

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) has announced that the “human rights” case brought against a number of estheticians by transgender activist Jessica Yaniv has ended with the court ruling in favor of the estheticians.

The JCCF represented over ten estheticians that Yaniv had brought complaints against. They noted that their victory entails that a service provider, like any other situation involving genitals, must first provide consent, which Yaniv did not have:

The decision noted, “human rights legislation does not require a service provider to wax a type of genitals they are not trained for and have not consented to wax.” The decision further found that the complainant Jessica Yaniv “engaged in improper conduct”, “filed complaints for improper purposes”, and concluded Yaniv’s testimony was “disingenuous and self-serving.” Finally, noted the Tribunal, Yaniv was “evasive and argumentative and contradicted herself” while giving evidence.

What’s more, Yaniv has been ordered by the court to pay $2,000 each to three of the five estheticians he went after.

Yaniv attempted to use the argument that these estheticians, all immigrants, were using their religion to discriminate against him. However, the JCCF stated that no woman should be forced to touch a man’s genitals, and the courts seemed to agree.

“Self-identification does not erase physiological reality,” stated Jay Cameron, the Justice Centre’s Litigation Manager, and counsel for the estheticians. “Our clients do not offer the service requested. No woman should be compelled to touch male genitals against her will, irrespective of how the owner of the genitals identifies.”

Yaniv was previously in the headlines for other bizarre behavior. Before this court case, he was attempting to organize a “topless” event for children where parents were not allowed.

(READ: Trans Activist Is Hosting A “Topless,” No Parents Allowed Swimming Event For Girls As Young As Twelve)

 

The post BREAKING: Trans Activist Jessica Yaniv Loses Court Battle Against Estheticians That Wouldn’t Wax His Genitals appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group 260c0824-7cf2-4300-873d-0b4f8bf402c4-300x153 BREAKING: Trans Activist Jessica Yaniv Loses Court Battle Against Estheticians That Wouldn’t Wax His Genitals Women transgender Politics men LGBT jessica yaniv Human Rights Front Page Stories court case Canada Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Kentucky Governor Releases an Ad Fighting for Women Athletes’ Dreams of Success: ‘What if That Shot was Taken Away?’

Westlake Legal Group matt-bevin-female-athlete-ad-SCREENSHOT-620x330 Kentucky Governor Releases an Ad Fighting for Women Athletes’ Dreams of Success: ‘What if That Shot was Taken Away?’ Women Uncategorized transgender The Sexes Sports men Matt Bevin Kentucky Gubernatorial Race Front Page Stories Featured Story democrats Culture athletics andy beshear Allow Media Exception

[Screenshot from Campaign for American Principles via YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=38&v=gb870EcuY5s]

 

Kentucky Governor Matt Bevin has released a new ad in his race against Democratic challenger Attorney General Andy Beshear.

The video proposes a world where Beshear-backed policies leave girls with the short end of the stick in the world of athletics.

“All female athletes want is a fair shot in competition,” the ad’s female narrator says.

“What if that shot was taken away by a competitor who claims they’re a girl, but was born a boy?”


It’s a really good question, and it’s happening to girls already — see here, here, here, and here.

Men and women, of course, are extremely different. It’s in the name of fairness that we have male and female leagues.

Here’s Joe Rogan with a great bit of explanation about all that:



The Kentucky ad summarizes:

“Andy Beshear supports legislation that would destroy girls’ sports. He calls it ‘equality.’”

Then comes the part of the ad I don’t understand: “Maybe.”

Maybe?

Moving on:

“But is it fair?” the narration asks.

In a move that I find shocking, Democrats are pushing for a day when a female boxer faces down a man who’s poised to break every bone in her face.

And this is the party for women?

Strange way of showin’ it.

-ALEX

 

Relevant RedState links in this article: here, here, here, and here.

See more pieces from me:

Every House Democrat But One: 234 Elected Officials Demand The Extermination Of Women’s Sports. #TimesUp

Nike Model Claims Men Can’t Be Women & Loses Her Agent. Her Next Shocker Makes Things Much Worse

Every House Democrat Voted To Crush The Dreams Of Women Athletes With The Ironically-Named ‘Equality Act’

Science Report: Sex-Based Sports Must Be Eradicated In Favor Of ‘Nuanced Approach.’ The New Criteria Are Stunning

Find all my RedState work here.

And please follow Alex Parker on Twitter and Facebook.

Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below.

If you have an iPhone and want to comment, select the box with the upward arrow at the bottom of your screen; swipe left and choose “Request Desktop Site.” If it fails to automatically refresh, manually reload the page. Scroll down to the red horizontal bar that says “Show Comments.”

The post Kentucky Governor Releases an Ad Fighting for Women Athletes’ Dreams of Success: ‘What if That Shot was Taken Away?’ appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group matt-bevin-female-athlete-ad-SCREENSHOT-300x160 Kentucky Governor Releases an Ad Fighting for Women Athletes’ Dreams of Success: ‘What if That Shot was Taken Away?’ Women Uncategorized transgender The Sexes Sports men Matt Bevin Kentucky Gubernatorial Race Front Page Stories Featured Story democrats Culture athletics andy beshear Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

How Is Lowering Standards In Industries to Attract Women Not Insulting to Them?

Westlake Legal Group ab3a70e9-aacc-47f3-87e4-fc076b332956.v1-620x413 How Is Lowering Standards In Industries to Attract Women Not Insulting to Them? Women tech Sex men Masculinity industries gender Front Page Stories fields Feminism Featured Story engineering Culture Business & Economy Army Rangers Allow Media Exception

It’s been happening for some time now, but I recently saw two examples of how standards are being lowered in various places so that women can more easily become a part of the whatever organization, business, or field they’re lowering their standards in.

The places that do lower their standards for women seem to be proud of the fact that they did it, and even go so far as to promote it to the world. While they’re patting themselves on the back, I can only read the media coverage and wonder why women aren’t outraged.

First, there’s the report that the Army Rangers had lowered their standards to get more women through training. Where men would fail out as a squad for not achieving certain goals or meeting requirements, women were given passing grades despite being the reason the rest of the squad failed.

Women were also being given greater rewards for doing common tasks in order for their records to look better.

Then, there was this recent report out of Australia that a University was lowering its core requirements to get into engineering school. The guest on The Today Show out of Syndey was exctatic about it, calling it “positive discrimination.”

As I said, there are tons of other examples of this kind of thing happening throughout various industries and fields, but it seems to be happening more and more and with more cheerleading behind it.

I’m not a woman, but I don’t need to be to see the myriad of problems here, and not just for the industries who are lowering their standards.

Why aren’t women completely insulted by the fact that these fields feel the need to attract them to their side by lowering standards? This is essentially saying “you’re not good enough as it is, but we want you to work here so we’re going to dumb things down for you.”

In my 35 years on this planet, I’ve met plenty of women who are far smarter than I am, and I’ve been told I’m no intellectual slouch. I imagine that when it comes to brainpower, there are plenty of women out there who are more than a match for engineering degrees. In fact, according to Harvard Business Review, women do just as well as men when it comes to obtaining engineering degrees already. The only problem is that they tend to drop out of the field during or after obtaining degrees, and many reports seem to agree that it has a lot to do with the engineering culture, which is male-dominated.

There were other complaints, such as many engineering jobs not being as “socially conscious” as women would like, but I want to focus on the “male domination” aspect.

Male-dominated industries are a thing, but so are women-dominated industries. It typically comes down to what each gender prefers doing. For instance, you won’t find many women and feminist groups complaining that there’s a huge gender-gap in sewage work, or that there are too many men and not enough women in the lumberjack industry.

Engineering can have a lot of the same things. It’s not going to have a lot of emotion attached to it and can be very logistically driven without ever becoming a people-based field. Women tend to thrive in fields where people are the central focus and prefer to work in those kinds of industries.

Nursing and education are a solid example of that. Women tend to choose these fields over others, making them dominated by women. You don’t see many people raising the issue that not enough men work in these fields either. What’s more, these fields develop cultures more suited to women, and there’s nothing wrong with that.

Just like there’s nothing wrong with men creating working environments more suited to men in places that are dominated by men. This doesn’t necessarily mean that women become second-class, but men definitely have a different way of doing things than women, and men creating environments where they operate better in a place with other men isn’t sexist, it’s efficient.

Now, it’d be one thing to try to tweak that culture to make it more welcoming for women, which isn’t necessarily an easy task if we’re being honest. Again, men and women do things differently. It’s not sexism, it’s just gender methodology. Instead, however, these fields are telling women that they’ll lower the requirements.

How is this move not sexist?

You’re telling women they’re not good enough as a sex for a job, so you’ll make things less intellectually rigorous? Women aren’t dumb, but that’s the message this is sending.

Furthermore, how does that solve the culture problem? How does that change the fact that women just aren’t interested in that industry naturally? How does flooding the industry with otherwise unqualified women help anyone? It doesn’t. You could look into how you could make a business culture more welcoming to women, but instead, the focus is on dumbing things down for them?

Speaking of helping anyone, how does lowering the standards for the Army Rangers make our armed forces any more effective, and not only that, make it more attractive for women in the long run. At least in the engineering field, lowering standards may just result in slower, less advanced work. Lowering standards in the armed forces means a higher chance that someone could actually die.

Lowering standards is only sending the message that women are weak, stupid, and not worth as much as a man, and we’re supposed to applaud this?

Moreover, how do the “women are the same as men” crowd justify applauding this when industries and fields are clearly sending the message that they’re not with these lowered standards?

If women truly have a passion for industry women aren’t typically seen in, then they’ll do what it takes to be there. Otherwise, this diversity kick is only going to be cumbersome for these fields, and in worst-case scenarios, get people hurt.

The post How Is Lowering Standards In Industries to Attract Women Not Insulting to Them? appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group ab3a70e9-aacc-47f3-87e4-fc076b332956.v1-300x200 How Is Lowering Standards In Industries to Attract Women Not Insulting to Them? Women tech Sex men Masculinity industries gender Front Page Stories fields Feminism Featured Story engineering Culture Business & Economy Army Rangers Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Dave Chappelle Takes the Abortion Argument to Its Logical End During Comedy Special

Westlake Legal Group Capture-9-620x371 Dave Chappelle Takes the Abortion Argument to Its Logical End During Comedy Special Women Pro-Life men Front Page Stories Featured Story dave chappelle comedy children Abortion

Dave Chappelle’s new comedy special on Netflix is making massive waves, and while I’ve already covered it twice, this moment in his special is one of the ones that really had me paying attention to what he was saying behind what he was saying.

During his set, Chappelle began discussing abortion and began by saying something you typically hear from the left when it comes to making arguments in that if you’re a man, you should stay out of the abortion debate altogether.

Wait for it.

Chappelle doesn’t stop there as many “comedians” do. Instead, Chappelle takes the argument to its logical end and then says something afterward that caught my attention.

“Gentleman, that is fair,” said Chappelle after saying that women shouldn’t have to consult anyone except a physician.

“And ladies, to be fair to us, I also believe that if you decide to have the baby, a man should not have to pay,” said Chappelle. “That’s fair.”

“If you can kill this motherf***er, I can at least abandon them,” he continued. “It’s my money, my choice.”

Chappelle finished by leaving the crowd and the viewer something to ponder. It wasn’t even a joke, just an interesting thing to say after all of that.

“And if I’m wrong, then perhaps we’re wrong,” he said.

*Language warning*

Even when agreeing with the pro-abortion argument, Chappelle manages to find a way to make them angry by declaring that if women can be so independent, then so can the men. I should not that I’m personally not in favor of either of these, but it can’t be ignored that women can’t have it so that they can be both unconcerned with what a man thinks but lay claim to his wallet.

What got my attention, however, was the ending phrase. There is no doubt that many women would take exception to his argument about men not having to be responsible for babies they don’t want. If these women are saying that Chappelle is wrong for standing by that philosophy, then they fall into the category about being wrong about abortion altogether.

I should note that as a pro-life man myself, I think fathers should take absolute responsibility for the children they helped create. Fatherless homes create a myriad of problems all on their own, so I’m not in agreement with Chappelle on either point.

But I like the fact that Chappelle leaves the answer open for discovery, claiming that if it’s wrong for him to think that way about the rights of fathers then perhaps he’s also wrong about the arguments toward abortion.

In effect, Chappelle destroys the idea that men shouldn’t be a part of the conversation. He may, or may not have meant to do that, but he tends to do that a few times throughout his special, where he makes the crowd believe he’s going one way, then turns it on them.

If you want to hear further argument as to why you should be watching this Netflix special, click the link below.

(READ: Why You Should Definitely Watch Dave Chappelle’s New Stand-Up Special, And Ignore The Outrage Brigades)

 

The post Dave Chappelle Takes the Abortion Argument to Its Logical End During Comedy Special appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group Capture-9-300x180 Dave Chappelle Takes the Abortion Argument to Its Logical End During Comedy Special Women Pro-Life men Front Page Stories Featured Story dave chappelle comedy children Abortion   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

No, the U.S. hasn’t declared that children of military servicemen born abroad aren’t citizens

Westlake Legal Group r-2 No, the U.S. hasn’t declared that children of military servicemen born abroad aren’t citizens Women uscis Trump The Blog service military men malor lind immigration cuccinelli Citizenship children

A hair-raising sentence that caused a minor freakout on political Twitter this afternoon from the new citizenship guidelines issued by the feds today: “USCIS is updating its policy regarding children of U.S. government employees and U.S. armed forces members employed or stationed outside the United States to explain that they are not considered to be ‘residing in the United States’ for purposes of acquiring citizenship under INA 320.”

So … children of U.S. military servicemen and women born abroad are no longer citizens? For a guy who likes to remind people how much he loves the military, Trump doesn’t seem to love the military so much here!

But no, that’s not what the policy says. You can read the actual guidelines here but the USCIS fact sheet is clear enough. Note well:

Who This Policy Update Does Not Affect

This policy does not affect children born outside the United States who were citizens at birth or who have already acquired citizenship, including children who:

Were born to two U.S. citizen parents, at least one of whom has had a residence in the United States or one of its outlying possessions before the child’s birth;

Were born to married parents, one of whom is a U.S. citizen and one a foreign national, if the U.S. citizen parent was physically present in the U.S. or one of its outlying possessions for at least five years, at least two of which were after they turned 14 years old;

How many children born abroad to servicemen and women are covered by those two categories? Ninety-five percent? More? None of them are touched by the new policy.

Today’s guidelines are a result of a bit of confusion between two different immigration statutes, says the USCIS in its explanation of the change. Section 320 of the Immigration and Nationality Act explains how a child who was born abroad can automatically become an American citizen. Basically, if one parent is a U.S. citizen, the child is under 18, and the child is now residing in the U.S. with the parent, he/she gets citizenship. All he/she has to do is take the oath. Section 322 is for children born abroad who don’t fit that criteria, i.e. if the family is now residing outside the U.S. In that case the child doesn’t get automatic citizenship but can be naturalized as an American citizen. In the case of a service member, as long as they’re a U.S. citizen and were present in the U.S. for at least five years after they turned 14 — and if you’re deployed abroad on military orders, that counts as “present in the U.S.” — then they can file some extra paperwork and have their child naturalized.

Until today, military members could file under either 320 or 322, claiming that they were residing in the U.S. even while deployed abroad *or* claiming that they weren’t residing in the U.S. but were “physically present.” The new policy clarifies that, from now on, it’s only the second route that’s available to them until they’re residing back home again.

First, permitting a child to be eligible simultaneously for a Certificate of Citizenship under INA 320 and for naturalization under INA 322 conflicts with the language of INA 322(a), which states that a parent “may apply for naturalization on behalf of a child born outside of the United States who has not acquired citizenship automatically under INA 320.”

Second, considering children who are living outside of the United States to be “residing in the United States” conflicts with the definition of “residence” at INA 101(a)(33), which defines “residence” as a person’s “principal, actual dwelling place in fact.”

Third, considering these children to be “residing in the United States” is at odds with INA 322(d), which was enacted in 2008,16 4 years after USCIS issued policy guidance on the topic. When Congress enacted INA 322(d), it provided for special procedures in cases involving the naturalization of “a child of a member of the Armed Forces of the United States who is authorized to accompany such member and reside abroad with the member pursuant to the member’s official orders, and is so accompanying and residing with the member.” Congress placed this provision under INA 322, which applies only to children “residing outside of the United States.” It did not provide similar language for such children to acquire citizenship under INA 320.

It boils down to this (if I’m understanding it correctly). Starting next month, a child born abroad to an American citizen in the military is no longer treated as though they’re residing in the U.S. If you want automatic citizenship for that child under 320, you need to wait until you come home and establish U.S. residency for the child here. Or, if you don’t want to wait until you’re back in the U.S., you can file paperwork under 322 that’ll make them a naturalized citizen even while they’re residing abroad. By forcing families who want to speed up the process to use 322 instead of 320, the feds are going to make servicemen to jump through more bureaucratic hoops and do more paperwork, which is a pain. But no one’s kid is being rendered ineligible for citizenship by the policy. They’re still fully entitled to it.

One question I have, though. If you go the 322 route, where does that leave your child with respect to his/her constitutional eligibility to be president as a “natural-born” citizen? Section 322 lays out the procedure for “naturalization on behalf of a child born outside of the United States who has not acquired citizenship automatically.” If the child is naturalized, by definition it’s not natural-born, right?

The post No, the U.S. hasn’t declared that children of military servicemen born abroad aren’t citizens appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group r-2-300x153 No, the U.S. hasn’t declared that children of military servicemen born abroad aren’t citizens Women uscis Trump The Blog service military men malor lind immigration cuccinelli Citizenship children   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

U.S. soccer: We’ve paid the women’s team more than we’ve paid the men’s team since 2010 — even though they bring in much less revenue

Westlake Legal Group r-4 U.S. soccer: We’ve paid the women’s team more than we’ve paid the men’s team since 2010 — even though they bring in much less revenue World Cup Work Women us soccer The Blog sport Rapinoe Pay men FIFA equal compensation Carlos Cordeiro

I fear the only fair solution is to pay our garbage national men’s team more.

No, actually, this is more complicated than it seems at first glance.

According to a letter released Monday by U.S. Soccer President Carlos Cordeiro, the federation paid out $34.1 million in salary and game bonuses to the women between 2010 and 2018 as opposed to $26.4 million paid to the men. The total does not include the value of benefits received only by the women, like health care…

Comparing compensation between the two teams is difficult because the pay structure is based on different collective bargaining agreements…

USSF also says the men’s team generates more revenue. The women’s team generated $101.3 million over the course of 238 games between 2009 and 2019 while the men generated $185.7 over 191 games, according to the federation.

The killer: “WNT games have generated a net profit (ticket revenues minus event expenses) in only two years (2016 and 2017). Across the entire 11-year period, WNT games generated a net loss of $27.5 million.” Likewise, individual men’s matches generated more than twice as much revenue over this period than women’s matches did. U.S. soccer is paying the women more — while losing money on them. And the women want … more money?

Case closed, then! They’re being paid more than fairly. But wait — players on the men’s team agree with the women that they’re underpaid:

Note the second paragraph in particular. If that’s true then U.S. soccer is accusing the women’s team of being a revenue-loser essentially based only on the gate at matches, without accounting for TV right and ads — not to mention the value in terms of prestige that back-to-back World Cups supplies to a program that’s a borderline laughingstock on the men’s side.

There’s more. The men’s team actually received more money ($41 million) overall than the women’s team since 2010 due to the fact that bonuses paid by FIFA (not by U.S. soccer) for World Cup appearances are waaaaay more generous for men’s teams than for women’s. ESPN notes that the 2018 World Cup winner, France, alone received more money than the entire 24-team field did in the Women’s World Cup. That is, a bad-to-middling U.S. men’s team still comes out ahead in compensation to a juggernaut in the women’s sport.

There’s another key difference between how the men and women are paid:

The federation pays U.S. women’s team members per-game payments for national-team play along with professional-team salaries for playing in the National Women’s Soccer League, as all 23 members of the women’s World Cup team do. The federation doesn’t pay professional salaries for the men.

A key divergence in how the teams are compensated has to do with their bargaining agreements, not their genders. The women negotiated a salary-plus-bonuses scheme, the men got a more complicated structure in which you’re paid “by training camp call-ups, game appearances and through performance bonuses.” The bonuses are more generous on the men’s side, but the men don’t have guaranteed pay like the women do. Arguably the women sacrificed some incentives in return for better income security. Maybe they had no choice: A player capable of making the U.S. men’s national team might be lavishly compensated in a pro league somewhere even if he’s not starting whereas the weaker commercial demand for the women’s sport requires women players to demand that the U.S. soccer federation to kick in with guaranteed professional pay for star players.

But then that’s the whole debate here, isn’t it? How much should public demand influence the players’ pay relative to achievement? “All U.S. soccer proved was that the women must consistently win at the highest level to approach what the men make while mired in mediocrity and underachievement,” said sports journalist Tanya Ray Fox, referring to the near-parity between what the women’s and men’s teams received from U.S. soccer since 2010. But if there are more eyeballs on the men for their inferior product, why shouldn’t they receive more for their mediocrity? Judi Dench is a better actor than The Rock, but if the latter can drum up more box office than the former, why shouldn’t he receive a bigger check? Like all sports, soccer is ultimately entertainment. At base, Megan Rapinoe and company are arguing with the fans for not having better taste.

The post U.S. soccer: We’ve paid the women’s team more than we’ve paid the men’s team since 2010 — even though they bring in much less revenue appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group r-4-300x153 U.S. soccer: We’ve paid the women’s team more than we’ve paid the men’s team since 2010 — even though they bring in much less revenue World Cup Work Women us soccer The Blog sport Rapinoe Pay men FIFA equal compensation Carlos Cordeiro   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Ilhan Omar on terrorism last year: America should be more fearful of white men

Westlake Legal Group io-1 Ilhan Omar on terrorism last year: America should be more fearful of white men white Trump The Blog Terrorist men Mehdi Hasan jihadist jihad Ilhan Omar fearful Al-Jazeera

There’s a truncated version of this clip going around but you’re better off with the fuller version posted by the Free Beacon, as there’s a dispute raging over what Omar’s intent was when she said, “I would say our country should be more fearful of white men across our country because they are actually causing most of the deaths within this country.”

“It’s almost like the entire point of this statement was to make conservative men experience the stereotyping that Muslim people have to deal with. And it worked!” sneered Vox-er Dylan Matthews at the righties outraged by Omar’s response. He thinks she was being sarcastic, asking the white majority hypothetically how they’d feel if they were viewed as suspiciously as Muslim men are. I took her as somewhat more serious than that: If we’re going to police Muslim men more closely because of jihadist violence, she’s saying, it makes sense that we should police white men more closely too because of white nationalist violence, which is in fact a growing problem. She’s not floating the idea because it’s inherently absurd, to highlight the absurdity of profiling Muslims. She’s complaining about a double standard in application. If we truly want to reduce violence, we should focus on the main perpetrators in the United States, white men. Certainly we should fear them just as much as, if not more than, Muslims.

She’s saying this, mind you, in response to a question specifically about jihadism, as a refugee from a country tormented by jihadists, as the western world ruminates what to do about the thousands of Muslim men who chose to trade comparatively comfortable lives for jihad in Syria and now want to return home. The takeaway is at least as much that she’s dismissing the threat from Islamism internationally as being somehow special or unique as that she’s stereotyping white men. Note, in fact, how she steers back to U.S. foreign policy as a way to keep Americans safe in the second part of her answer, an allusion to “blowback.” Her top priority in this exchange, I think, wasn’t to demagogue whites but to scoff at the risk posed by jihadism. White nationalists are at least as bad, she’s saying, and to the extent they aren’t it’s America’s own fault for antagonizing people. (And for allying itself with Israel, of course.)

I think there’s a deeper point too in what she says about white men, something of a piece with the Squad’s general political and social outlook. “We’re not the Other anymore,” she and the others mean to say to Trump and his white, right-wing base. “At least no more than you are.” And that’s the heart of the Trump/Squad war, isn’t it? Who defines the nation in 2019 — the shrinking, aging, reactionary white majority or the growing, younger, progressive nonwhite minority? In a country where the former dominate, one might expect the balance of suspicion for evils like terrorism to fall on nonwhites. In a country where the latter are building influence, whites should expect to find themselves under suspicion as well. Anxiety about that struggle for cultural dominance helps explain why the right has veered away from conservatism and towards nationalism and why Trump has cannily sought to elevate four young minority women progressives as his prime enemies. Of the four, Omar is the one most willing to frankly articulate the subtext of the deeper dispute with him, as she does here. She’s one of his greatest political assets — at least until the white majority becomes the white minority.

The post Ilhan Omar on terrorism last year: America should be more fearful of white men appeared first on Hot Air.

Westlake Legal Group io-1-300x159 Ilhan Omar on terrorism last year: America should be more fearful of white men white Trump The Blog Terrorist men Mehdi Hasan jihadist jihad Ilhan Omar fearful Al-Jazeera   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Anti-Feminism Has Officially Become More Popular than Feminism

Westlake Legal Group ab3a70e9-aacc-47f3-87e4-fc076b332956.v1-620x413 Anti-Feminism Has Officially Become More Popular than Feminism Women Politics men Front Page Stories Feminism Femininity Featured Story far-right Equality anger Allow Media Exception

The day that was always inevitable has finally arrived.

Despite the media, activists, Hollywood, and politicians all pushing it in everything from the news to the movies, feminism has never been able to achieve complete saturation within the populace. It was always coming off as entitled, unfair, and weak, all while trying to bill itself as a movement dedicated to building strong women who support equality.

The public learned that equality was never the goal and the pro-woman aspect fell apart in the face of the way the feminist movement treated women who disagreed with it. Feminism was always at war with femininity, and women weren’t into it for the most part despite the media portraying it as some super popular movement. In fact, not only were women not into it, feminism created too many enemies with its abrasive behavior, nonsensical belief system, and asinine demands.

Thus, anti-feminism has now become more popular than feminism, and what makes this even more delicious is that BuzzFeed of all places has now had to recognize the fact.

Mark Di Stefano of BuzzFeed posted a tweet that shows some of the stats, putting the disbelief primarily on men.

According to BuzzFeed, the group Hope Not Hate commissioned research to see where the idea of feminism lies with the populace and the results cause them to think that we’re slipping into the “far-right” due to the acceptance of “anti-feminism”:

The survey, conducted by YouGov earlier this year, found 33% of people between ages 18 and 24 agreed with the statement “Feminism is to blame for making some men feel marginalised and demonised in society”.

Across all age groups, 42% of men felt that feminism was marginalising and demonising some men, while only a quarter of women agreed.

I want to take a moment here to point out that anti-feminism is not a “far-right” idea. In fact, anti-feminism is geared more toward believing in equality for the sexes than feminism is, which constantly attempts to garner more gains for women while denigrating men with accusations of “patriarchal privilege” and constant claims of sexism over things like air conditioning. It’s ridiculously lazy to assume that any resistance to a leftist ideal such as modern feminism is a result of far-right plotting.

In fact, most people believe that sexual equality is a great thing, they just reject feminism as noted by the BBC, which found that 1 in 5 women in the U.S. and the U.K. identify as feminist, but that eight in ten believe in equality of the sexes.

Feminism hasn’t been popular to associate with, even when the third wave was in full swing a few years ago. Feminism has always been antagonistic in nature, and the constant denigration of society because it wasn’t focusing on what the feminist agenda wanted turned people off. It even went so far as to make itself the hub of intersectionalism, making everything under the sun a “women’s issue.”

Women have enough issues to deal with, they didn’t need more. What’s more, the fact that women who rejected feminist principles, even if it was the most minute, were lambasted and dragged over coals.

Feminism stopped being something to sign on to and started being something to resist very quickly.

And so, both women and men walked away from the circus show. Feminism might not be dead, not yet, but it does look corpse-like.

The post Anti-Feminism Has Officially Become More Popular than Feminism appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group ab3a70e9-aacc-47f3-87e4-fc076b332956.v1-300x200 Anti-Feminism Has Officially Become More Popular than Feminism Women Politics men Front Page Stories Feminism Femininity Featured Story far-right Equality anger Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

Listen up, men: Here’s what you should actually wear to that Fourth of July barbecue

Westlake Legal Group blazer Listen up, men: Here’s what you should actually wear to that Fourth of July barbecue trends summer fashion summer attire Summer style tips style shopping men's style men's fashion men fashion barbecue
© halayalex / stock.adobe.com

Summer is in full swing, and that means outdoor dinner parties, daytime events and barbecues are constantly on the calendar, leaving you to grapple with finding the right outfit every single time. Kelly Kirchberg, president and head stylist of Divine Style, a styling company headquartered in DC with most clients in Northern Virginia, says she frequently receives client requests asking for help with summer outfits.

Kirchberg, who has multiple degrees in fashion, started her business seven years ago after realizing her true passion for the industry, as well as the prevalent need for styling men in both DC and Northern Virginia.

According to Kirchberg, the men in this area tend to come to her for assistance when they are too busy to shop, travel for business or aren’t even based here and need the right look for a business meeting in DC. 

“We have a lot of male clients, especially in Northern Virginia, who have different life changes going on and really want to refresh their image, so we are there to give them another perspective,” Kirchberg says. 

Here, Kirchberg shares her key tips for men who want to enhance their personal style this summer.     

For those who don’t know where to start:
Probably about 90% of our clients want to be comfortable in what they’re wearing temperature-wise. So, a lot of it is finding fabrics and prints that make their outfit more interesting, but still keep them comfortable. It’s about balancing two different styles to create a more unexpected look that is stylized and done, more than just an expected T-shirt and shorts or polo and jeans. That’s the average outfit, so it’s about how we can use different pieces together to create unique looks for them. Tailoring is a big thing that men don’t do, too. If you get the proper fit, you can make inexpensive T-shirts or pants look great on you.

Another part of it is as soon as men get complimented on what they’re wearing, or their look, it differentiates that for them and makes them want to look or dress better. Women are looking for other women to compliment them, but men don’t really talk about or compliment each other about their clothes as much as women do. Our job is to figure out for our male clients what their signature or go-to piece is. They always have something they love, like sunglasses, belts or a beaded bracelet. It’s all about incorporating that through their style in different looks. 

If dressing in a Fourth of July-themed outfit is your thing:
We try to stay away from dressing in themes like wearing an American flag shirt, but it’s also easy to play around with prints. For example, print shorts are really eye-catching and fun to wear without being too much. You can also pair that with a short-sleeved button down shirt or a camp shirt with twill shorts. Also, a bright-colored chino pant for men, layered with a print shirt or knit tee will give a lot of versatility to an outfit, rather than wearing the expected outfit. We also always recommend accessorizing; that’s key to making a look stand out. Sunglasses or hats are great for men. 

If all you want to do is wear that old Hawaiian shirt in the closet:
They’re actually trending this year; they’re back in style. I think it’s all about what you’re pairing it with. Hawaiian shirts give you the opportunity to match with white denim or quill shorts or, depending on the print, you can pair it with colored, light chinos. It’s interspersing, you can always play with different fabrics. We actually just helped a client pair a bold Hawaiian shirt with linen shorts for a Fourth of July barbecue, it gives the modern but not-just-stepping-off-the-plane-from-Hawaii look. 

What all men really need in their closet:
The first most important thing is to find a really great, fitted pair of denim. We always make sure our clients have a nice, darker pair to be worn to the office and a variety of other events. Also, in our area especially, I would say finding a really cool statement jacket that works well for them is essential. For some that’s a blazer, for others that’s a bomber jacket, and those are easy to style in different ways. Lastly, finding a great T-shirt that stands out and makes the man look put together no matter what he’s pairing it with. I always say it’s like the little black dress that women have—it’s a must. 

Interested in more style content? Subscribe to our weekly Shopping newsletter.

Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com 

The “Foodie Call”: A Third of Women Admit to Going on Dates Just for a Free Meal

Westlake Legal Group secret-2725302_960_720-620x413 The “Foodie Call”: A Third of Women Admit to Going on Dates Just for a Free Meal Women men Front Page Stories Foodie Call Feminism Featured Story dating Culture Allow Media Exception

Imagine you’re out on a date after having met a girl on a dating app like Tinder or Bumble. After some conversations, she asks when you’re going to ask her out to dinner. Thinking you’ve found a connection with a girl, you excitedly plan to go out on a date with one another at a place she recommends. You take her out and think you have a great time. You don’t mind doing the gentlemanly duty of paying for her meal and drinks at all.

After that, she doesn’t return your phone calls and the messages stop. You wonder if it was something you did wrong or something stupid you said. Don’t worry it’s not you, it’s definitely her.

You were just the victim of a new dating trend called the “foodie call.” It’s where women manipulate men to take them out on dates for a free meal.

According to PsychCentral, a third of women have admitted to doing this to men during dates:

Researchers conducted two studies. In the first, 820 women were recruited, with 40 percent reporting they were single, 33 percent married, and 27 percent saying they were in a committed relationship but not married. Out of them, 85 percent said they were heterosexual, and they were the focus for the study, researchers reported.

The women answered a series of questions that measured their personality traits, beliefs about gender roles, and their foodie call history. They were also asked if they thought a foodie call was socially acceptable.

According to the study’s findings, 23 percent of women in this group revealed they’d engaged in a foodie call. Most did so occasionally or rarely.

Although women who had engaged in a foodie call believed it was more acceptable, most women believed foodie calls were “extremely” to “moderately” unacceptable.

The second study analyzed a similar set of questions of 357 heterosexual women and found 33 percent had engaged in a foodie call.

For both groups, those who engaged in foodie calls scored higher in the “dark triad” personality traits.

What are the “dark triad” personality traits? According to PsychCentral, these three traits are psychopathy, Machiavellianism, and narcissism.

“Several dark traits have been linked to deceptive and exploitative behavior in romantic relationships, such as one-night stands, faking an orgasm, or sending unsolicited sexual pictures,” said Brian Collisson of Azusa Pacific University.

It should be reiterated that most women find this kind of behavior to be unacceptable, and rightly so. Just as it’s wrong for a man to use a woman for her body, it’s wrong for a woman to use a man for his wallet. However, this is marked as a growing trend.

One thing that they did note in the description of the study was that the women who do this tend to also have a connection about their beliefs of gender roles, though it’s not said which specific question is asked of the women who participated in the study, which I find interesting.

It’s my theory that it’s not so much a belief in gender roles, but an awareness of societal standards which these women are clearly manipulating. A belief in gender roles may cause a woman to seek a provider over the long term, and would thus be entering a relationship with a suitable man. A manipulator of the gender roles is clearly pleased with being single and only seeking a provider for a night just to score a free meal.

The sad thing is that if this trend continues to grow, then two things will happen. One, more women may engage in the practice thanks to the rise of feminist ideological nonsense being pumped into society from every mainstream angle. Men seeking partners will become victims of women with ill intentions.

This will then lead to the second occurrence of men distrusting women. Men will begin to give up their duty of paying for women’s meals over fears that they’re just trying to score off of him. The dating scene is already precarious over the fears that at any time, a man could be accused of harassment or even rape over something innocuous or a later regret by the woman.

The divide between men and women, already widened by social justice tinkering in the mainstream media, will grow larger.

The post The “Foodie Call”: A Third of Women Admit to Going on Dates Just for a Free Meal appeared first on RedState.

Westlake Legal Group secret-2725302_960_720-300x200 The “Foodie Call”: A Third of Women Admit to Going on Dates Just for a Free Meal Women men Front Page Stories Foodie Call Feminism Featured Story dating Culture Allow Media Exception   Real Estate, and Personal Injury Lawyers. Contact us at: https://westlakelegal.com