Monday, April 7, 2014

Nabisco: Sex discrimination is 'wholesome'

Scientists agree that breastfeeding is best for infants. Breastmilk is considered so important and nutritious, that hospitals now offer Lactation Consultants on site to birthing mothers to offer advice and support to moms.

 Although infant formula makers work hard to make their product as nutritious as possible, how can powdered formula beat Mother Nature?  (Spoiler alert:  It can’t.)

"While the food aspects of milk to some extent are replicated in formula, the immuno factors and medicine of milk are not and the hormonal signals are not," says evolutionary biologist Katie Hinde at Harvard University. In fact, a new study revealed another startling difference between formula and breastmilk.  Researchers have discovered that the bodies of nursing mothers automatically adjust their milk content depending on the sex of their baby. Hinde reported, "Mothers are producing different biological recipes for sons and daughters."  The biologist co-authored a study that documents “baby boys often get milk that is richer in fat or protein — and thus energy — while baby girls often get more milk.”  

Good luck, scientists,  trying to match the genius of a woman's body.

Milk and cookies

What does breastmilk have to do with Nabisco?  The company famous for Oreos (“Milk’s favorite cookie”) recently launched an ad called “This is Wholesome” to promote its Honey Maid graham crackers and gender-exclusive families.  

That's right, some guys have tried to improve upon women--by excluding them from the family and replacing them with another guy.

The ad opens with a close-up of an infant drinking from a bottle (even though science confirms breast is best!)  Then the camera pulls back to reveal the man holding the bottle, followed shortly by another guy who comes and kisses the baby’s forehead.

The commercial continues with clips of other families, including gender-integrated and racially diverse ones.  The voiceover intones:  “No matter how things change, what makes us wholesome never will.  Honey Maid.  Everyday wholesome snacks.  For every wholesome family.”

Audiences had mixed reactions to the male family featured in the ad.  Some viewers sent notes complaining about the presumably gay couple.  One Million Moms wrote:
“There is concern about the way this ad is pushing the LGBT agenda, but an even greater concern is the way that they are changing the meaning of the word ‘wholesome.’ This is truly sad. If this is what Honey Maid thinks is wholesome, then my family will no longer purchase Honey Maid or Nabisco products.”
Meanwhile, same sex marriage enthusiasts sent ten times as many messages thanking Nabisco.  The company compiled the comments, hired two artists, and created a new commercial, in which they rolled up the mail to spell out the word “Love.”

Although both sides of the marriage debate often focus on whether or not homosexuality is wholesome, here’s the more pertinent question we need to examine:  Is sex discrimination wholesome? 

Should discrimination against women be fostered and legalized in male marriage?  

Where is that baby’s mother in the opening scene?  And why is she excluded from this family and from her baby’s life?  And why does Nabisco think kicking women out of children’s lives is “wholesome”?  

Is Nabisco telling us:  Breastfeeding is best except when your dad is not oriented toward women so he bans your mom from your family because she’s female and has breasts.  Which produce breastmilk.  Which is better than manmade formula.  But, whatever.

Why is it forbidden for everyone else to discriminate based on sex, but when gays do it, it’s called the New Civil Rights Movement?

This isn’t Wholesome; this is Halfsome

Segregating men and women in marriage is not wholesome.  A “marriage” of two men is missing one half of humanity.  A female “marriage” lacks the other half.  In contrast, each whole marriage consists of the complementary genders, both male and female. 

A mother's body automatically adjusts to the sex of her baby and produces breastmilk geared toward that child's needs.  In contrast, male marriage does not adjust to the different genders; instead it rejects females.  It is a manmade formula which intentionally segregates genders in marriage.

Separating a child from his mother isn’t equality.  That baby represented in the video should have the same right to a mom as any other baby.  Excluding wives and mothers from male  marriages isn’t tolerance.  That’s intolerance.  And depriving children of a mother simply because moms are female is not “Love.”  It’s sexism.

If they believe women are so toxic that they ought to be banned from male families, then Nabisco should change the name of their graham crackers from Honey Maid to Honey Lad.  

Wednesday, April 2, 2014

Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich slammed for supporting gender diversity in marriage

Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich is being pilloried for supporting gender integration in marriage.  Eich co-founded Mozilla and invented JavaScript, the most commonly used computer programming language, but he’s in the news now for defending gender diversity.

Six years ago Eich donated $1,000 to support Proposition 8, which states, “Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”  Many gay rights activists jumped to the conclusion that everyone who endorsed Prop 8, including Eich, must be anti-gay.

Note that there is no mention of homosexuality or sexual orientation in that amendment, or for that matter, on a marriage license.  Instead, Prop 8 deals strictly with gender.  Nevertheless, proponents of gender-segregated marriage are outraged that Eich had the audacity to support gender integration.  (Are they equally angry at President Obama, who also endorsed pro-gender marriage up until 2012?)

Same sex enthusiasts are not just targeting Eich; they also are calling on consumers to boycott his company.  For example, dating site OKCupid wrote to users linking to their site via Mozilla’s Firefox Internet browser:
“We’ve devoted the last ten years to bringing people—all people—together. If individuals like Mr. Eich had their way, then roughly 8% of the relationships we’ve worked so hard to bring about would be illegal. Equality for gay relationships is personally important to many of us here at OkCupid. But it’s professionally important to the entire company. OkCupid is for creating love. Those who seek to deny love and instead enforce misery, shame, and frustration are our enemies, and we wish them nothing but failure."
One itty-bitty problem.  Segregating genders in marriage will automatically “deny love” between mothers and children.  If OKCupid wants to bring “all people” together, then why do they endorse male marriage, which separates children from their mothers and divides mothers and fathers?  If they believe equality is “personally important,” then why intentionally deprive some children of the chance to have a loving relationship with their mom?  Don’t gays’ children have an equal right to mothers?

For these reasons and others, some gays do not support sex discrimination in marriage.  Are they “anti-gay” for not supporting male marriage?
One major problem with same sex marriage is that it grants more importance to sexual diversity than to gender diversity.  Many, such as OKCupid, want to “enforce misery, shame, and frustration” on those who disagree with this sexist view of marriage. 

Eich has responded to all the hate mail with a blog post:
“I am committed to ensuring that Mozilla is, and will remain, a place that includes and supports everyone, regardless of sexual orientation, gender identity, age, race, ethnicity, economic status, or religion…I intend to demonstrate with meaningful action my commitment to a Mozilla that lives up to its ideals, including that of being an open and inclusive community.”
Does this mean Eich will now start promoting same sex marriage?

Not according to Hampton Catlin “who with his husband comprises the development firm Rarebit.”  Catlin reported to CNET:
"[Eich] fended off the question [of whether he would vote 'yes' on Prop. 8 again] without answering, which leads me to believe that he is totally unwilling to empathize with those of us who suffered under the law.” "After having the meeting, I was truly surprised to see him double down on his original position of sticking his fingers in his ear and saying 'inclusion' over and over again," he said. 
"I asked him to just issue a statement that his personal, private beliefs remained the same about what a traditional family is, but that he recognized that we should not legislate morality and that those laws had a tangible negative effect on people," Catlin said. "Instead, he fell back to his defensive position and refuses to apologize for helping to fund a law that actively discriminated against his own employees and community."
In other words, Eich vows to foster openness and inclusivity to all at Mozilla "regardless of sexual orientation."  Yet he didn't retract support for Prop 8.  Is this proof Eich understands that you can treat the LGBT community with respect and at the same time, honor gender diversity in marriage law?  These are not mutually exclusive.

What is exclusive is same sex marriage.  Each male marriage excludes a woman.  It lacks a wife who can be a mother for subsequent children.  And each female marriage excludes a husband and father.  That’s not marriage equality.  That’s same sexism marriage. 

Catlin says we shouldn’t “legislate morality” yet he would have us legislate sex discrimination in marriage.  (If not morals, what are laws supposed to be based on?  Emotions?  Attractions?)  For all his talk of inclusion and discrimination, it is same sex marriage that excludes people based on their sex.  In contrast, pro-gender marriage welcomes both men and women regardless of sexual orientation.

Since Eich invented JavaScript, he knows how important language is.  Words have meaning.  And gender matters to everyone.  Let’s hope Eich continues to get the language of marriage correct and perseveres in supporting pro-gender marriage.

Tuesday, March 11, 2014

A polite sexist is still a sexist even if he’s gay

Prominent writers recently wrestled with the following question:

If a business declines to photograph a same sex wedding, does that automatically prove the owner is an “anti-gay bigot”?

Ross Douthat started the conversation with his op-ed at the New York Times in which he pretty much repeated the left’s mantra that the debate is over and same sex marriage will soon win.  The only question remaining is, will gay rights activists honor freedom and “let the dissenters opt out,” or will they be pressured and sued into celebrating same sex marriages?

At Slate, Mark Joseph Stern promptly criticized Douthat for claiming the war was already won.  This is odd since this is precisely what the left’s talking point has been for months:  Same sex marriage is inevitable, so give up already. 

Which Douthat did.

Stern also excoriated Douthat for portraying religious business owners as victims:
Douthat, like most state legislators who have defended “religious liberty” bills, explicitly cites that infamous trio: a florist, a photographer, and a baker, who claimed their Christianity required that they deny service to gay couples. There’s a reason these same three cases pop up time and time again: They tell a very human story of a small-business owner suddenly trapped in the labyrinth of a lawsuit, the victim of the gay rights movement run amok.
(Does Stern believe only gays have the right to play the victim card?)

For someone who argues against hatred, Stern’s piece is curiously full of contempt.  He calls Douthat’s opinion “homophobic apologia.”  But perhaps Stern is merely following the example of the highest court in the land.

The United States Supreme Court did a grave disservice to both sides of the marriage debate when they claimed that everyone who wants to preserve gender-integration in marriage must be motivated by “animus.”  This only encourages gay rights activists to look suspiciously at supporters of pro-gender marriage. 

Fortunately, many see through the Court’s animus argument.  As Conor Friedersdorf at The Atlantic noticed:
The Slate article is implicitly trafficking in its own sort of prejudice. The working assumption is that homophobia, anti-gay bigotry, and hatred are obviously what's motivating anyone who declines to provide a service for a gay wedding.  That assumption is wrongheaded.
Slate writer William Saletan agrees that opponents of gender-segregated marriage are not ipso facto bigots.  He warned, "We’re stereotyping and vilifying opponents of gay marriage the way we’ve seen gay people stereotyped and vilified. This is a deeply personal moral issue."

Gay rights activists used to hold the sympathy card.  But does suspicion, name-calling, and stereotyping their opponents signify that they are now trafficking in hate? 

Friedersdorf cautions activists, “Telling a group that an incident or dispute is rooted in bigotry when evidence supports a different conclusion increases the perception of being hated more than reality justifies.”

And will activists’ zealous search for animus yield results?  As they continue to accuse Christians of bigotry, will they be fostering a climate of hate?  As they sue their fellow citizens for holding a different religious belief about gender in marriage, will the tables be turned?  This is precisely Douthat’s concern-- that same sex marriage activists might overplay their hand and bully those who disagree with them.

This is an important conversation.  If supporters of pro-gender marriage are automatically branded as haters, this will shut down debate and prejudice wins.  Fortunately, we have free speech and can have this debate out in the open, even though both sides risk being labeled by haters.

Stern defended himself in his post titled “A Polite Homophobe Is Still a Homophobe.”  He argues that simply because a photographer declines politely doesn’t mean she’s not bigoted.  “By dressing up her homophobia in good manners,” the photographer “might have softened the blow for” the female couple seeking photos of their ceremony.  “But the ultimate effect of her actions is the same as if she had placed a sign on her shop door stating ‘No Gay Couples Served Here.’”

In his rebuttal Stern starts out talking about a “union” and then promptly switches it to an individual “identity.”
[F]or Friedersdorf, believing that gays, lesbians, and their legal unions are “sinful” does not qualify as homophobia—even if this belief leads you to turn gay couples away from your business. I disagree. To believe that someone’s identity is inherently sinful is, to my mind, to be bigoted against them.
First of all, when talking about Christians, gays, and sin, it is crucial to note that Christians believe everyone is sinful, themselves included.

Secondly, Stern conflates marriage and identity.  Whether people are born with same sex attraction or not is an ongoing debate. But no one is arguing that they are born married.  Choosing a spouse is an action, not a state of being.  Even many gays do not endorse same sex marriage.  Surely they are not “anti-gay” for honoring gender diversity in marriage.

Thirdly, Stern conveniently ignores the fact that the photographers in question "will serve anyone" including gays.  However, they draw the line at endorsing same sex weddings.  And a whopping 85% of Americans agree with the photographers' right to do so.  We can all delight in baby photos and senior portraits and graduation pictures regardless of sexual orientation.  But we can choose not to celebrate gender discrimination in the public institution of marriage.

Would photographers take pictures of a mixed orientation marriage?  How about a gay man married to a lesbian woman?  If they say yes to these jobs, that’s not homophobia. 

What about two straight guys who want to marry and raise a family together?  If the photographers decline to take pictures of the wedding of two straight guys, again, that’s not anti-gay.  And it’s not anti-straight.  It’s pro-gender.

In their hunt for animus and discrimination, gay rights activists would do well to look at marriage with wide eyes and an open mind and insightful questions. 

When two men decline a wife and exclude from their marriage the mother of their children, is that sexist?  Is there an inherent animus against women when two men marry?

Is male marriage sexist even when it’s all politely dressed up in trendy gay rights talk? 

Gay rights advocates obviously have a heart for homosexuals.  We can join their quest to stamp out bullying and to treat all gays with dignity and respect.  In turn, we invite them to open their hearts to women and join us in opposing the unjust discrimination against women in marriage.

Saturday, February 22, 2014

New on Facebook: 56 'custom gender' stereotypes!

Will Facebook make money marketing gender transformation?

Facebook is a powerhouse of social media that not only reflects our culture, but leads it.  “Friend” used to be a noun until Facebook verbed it.  Now friends aren’t assessed by what they have in common or how much they like each other, so much as they are simply numbered and measured by what they “Like.” Getting an account on Facebook is a rite of passage for many thirteen-year-olds.  And when your young teen registers, he now has fifty-six “custom gender” options to choose from to present his “true, authentic self” to the world.

Facebook explains on their Diversity page:
When you come to Facebook to connect with the people, causes, and organizations you care about, we want you to feel comfortable being your true, authentic self. An important part of this is the expression of gender, especially when it extends beyond the definitions of just “male” or female.” So today, we’re proud to offer a new custom gender option to help you better express your own identity on Facebook…people who select a custom gender will now have the ability to choose the pronoun they’d like to be referred to publicly — male (he/his), female (she/her) or neutral (they/their).
Options include:  agender, bigender, cisgender, genderqueer, and neither as well as several trans options, with and without an asterisk.

This is subtle marketing.  Facebook did not publish a list of all the options, leaving users to begin typing into an empty text field in order to bring up a drop-down menu of autocomplete choices.”  How co-creative.
As others have noted, the best marketing is invisible but effective.  Crowdsourcing is giving way to co-creating.  Is the company deliberately engaging consumers in an interactive fill-in-the-blank mode to give the illusion that they are co-creators?  And generating customer loyalty to Facebook in the process?

For advertisers, are the 56 new gender options virtually meaningless? Fox News explains, “At this point, Facebook targets advertising according to male or female genders. For those who change to something neutral, ads will be targeted based on the pronoun they select for themselves.”  It’s the three public pronouns (he, she, or they) that will dictate advertising dollars.

Regardless of the capitalist response, the trans community welcomed Facebook’s promotion of virtual diversity. 

"There's going to be a lot of people for whom this is going to mean nothing, but for the few it does impact, it means the world," said Facebook software engineer Brielle Harrison, who worked on the project and is herself undergoing gender transformation, from male to female. On Thursday, while watchdogging the software for any problems, she said she was also changing her Facebook identity from Female to TransWoman.
Indeed. Can you hear the yearning in this comment someone wrote regarding Facebook’s new terminology?
“Thank you from the bottom of my heart. You have made me feel like a real person and I cannot tell you how much that matters.”

Wednesday, February 19, 2014

Economics of Sex Video: 'Sex is her resource'

The Austin Institute for the Study of Family and Culture has a short tutorial on the "Economics of Sex."

How do men and women differ when it comes to sex?  What about marriage?

What is the collusion of women and how will it help?

It's all about gender differences and supply and demand.  And a tiny technological shock.

Interesting comparison between pesticides and the Pill since the latter is carcinogenic.

Thursday, February 13, 2014

Irish Archbishop: If you don’t show love to homosexuals you are 'homophobic' and ‘Godophobic’

Archbishop of Dublin, Diarmuid Martin, says homophobia is “insulting to God,” because “God never created anybody that he doesn't love."

According to the Independent Dr. Martin said:
"Anybody who doesn't show love towards gay and lesbian people is insulting God. They are not just homophobic if they do that – they are actually Godophobic because God loves every one of those people." Regarding the harassment of homosexuals, Dr. Martin said, "Certainly the sort of actions that we heard of this week of people being spat at because they were gay or ridiculed . . . that is not a Christian attitude. We have to have the courage to stand up and say that."  He added: "We all belong to one another and there is no way we can build up a society in which people are excluded or insulted.”
This is one problem with same sex marriage.  By definition, it excludes people by gender.  A male "marriage" rejects a wife and mother.  A female "marriage" excludes a husband and father. How can we “build up a society” with families that are based on sex discrimination?

From Buzzfeed:  
 “Just because a person isn’t in favor of gay marriage doesn’t mean that one is homophobic — let’s be very clear on that.”
Many people believe that loving gays means we must endorse separate marriages for them.  This is a fallacy.  Love does not require depriving children of a relationship with their mother simply because their dad is gay.  Love does not mean segregating people by gender and sexual orientation in marriage law. 

The Archbishop cautioned against labeling the Catholic Church anti-gay simply because it supports pro-gender marriage.  In a radio interview, he advised, “Debates on issues like this have to be carried out in a mature way in which people can freely express their views, and at the same time in which you express those views in a way that won’t offend others.” 

He says the Church “can’t impose” its beliefs “on any individual and society, but it has a right to go out and say it.”

And what is that teaching?
“There is something special about the relationship between a man and a woman . . .the complementarity of the sexes which is God-given and that is what makes marriage different…there can be ways the gays can celebrate their togetherness, their love for one another…but it isn’t marriage.”
Marriage celebrates gender diversity and the complementarity of the sexes.

Monday, February 10, 2014

Should we treat children differently if they’re gay?

Since gay kids have a different sexual orientation from straight kids, should we treat them differently?  Should we rewrite family law so we have the power and authority to separate them from mothers?

For example, since some boys are not sexually oriented to females, would it be better for these children not to have to deal with a relationship with their mother?  (How can they love their mother if she’s female?)  Instead, should we place these kids in a home with two men?  Similarly, would same-sex-attracted girls be better off with two moms so they can avoid having to adjust to forming a relationship with their father?

If kids are “born that way” wouldn’t it be in their own best interests to place them in families according to their sexual orientation and gender?

After all, same sex marriage activists assure us that children fare just as well with single-sex parents.  If anyone doesn’t need both a mom and dad, wouldn't it be a child with same sex attraction?  Doesn’t that give us the moral authority to handle gay kids divergently?  Wouldn’t it benefit society to separate homosexual boys from their mothers?  And exclude dads from the lives of girls with same sex attraction?

Instead of basing families on old-fashioned biology, or mothering and fathering, we can form families based on sexual orientation.

If, however, you find it absolutely appalling to discriminate against gay kids this way, then consider this:

If it’s unfair to segregate kids who happen to be gay, then why do we think it’s the “right side of history” to do this to kids who happen to have gay parents?

That’s exactly what same sex marriage does.  It segregates spouses by sexual orientation and gender.  It tells their children, “We’re excluding your mother from your home because your dad is gay.”

If it's wrong to discriminate against gay children, isn't it wrong to discriminate against gays' children?

Support pro-gender marriage.  Because gender matters to everyone, including those with same sex attraction and their children.