53percenter's Blog

Feminists often decry the “fact” that women earn seventy-seven cents for every dollar a man makes. Despite the flaws in the studies upon which this statistic is based, the idea of treating a human as less than four-fifths of a person appalls them. Similarly, while ignoring political context, feminists decry the “fact” that our founders were all racists because the Constitution counted slaves as three-fifths of a person. Yet feminist administrators at UNC-Wilmington (a.k.a. “The Dub”) recently ruled that conservative women are less than one-half of a person. Unlike the feminists, I can bolster that accusation with facts and appropriate political context.

Last August, a conflict emerged between a feminist administrator and two conservative women – one an alumna and the other a student. The feminist administrator ran the Women Studies Resource Center (WSRC) until she recently resigned in the wake of the conflict, which has now resulted in a federal civil rights complaint. The initial conflict was over the question of whether the WSRC would fund an abortion debate sponsored by a Christian organization. It was doubtful they would, given their long herstory of only sponsoring unequivocally pro-abortion events.

The conservative alumna and the conservative student made a direct request for funding of the debate and were told by the feminist administrator that abortion is a “women’s issue” and that the debate could not be funded because the debate participants were “both male.” When I found out about this, I was incensed. I was one of the proposed debate participants. The other was abortionist Dr. Willie Parker. (That debate eventually happened and you can watch it by clicking on this link).

It will come as no surprise to readers that I did not take this lying down. I decided to file a formal Title IX complaint since the funding for my speech was denied on the basis of my gender. I was one of the males subjected to discrimination. So I had standing as the complainant. The two conservative women were the ear-witnesses to the discrimination.

But the Title IX Office did not see it that way. They decided to switch our roles, which made me a witness and the women the complainants. The reason they did that was obvious: They wanted to claim that FERPA prevented me from accessing all evidence related to the investigation. This was an intentional misapplication of the law by the UNCW administration for the sole purpose of protecting the WSRC director – who would be in clear violation of federal law if the two conservative women were telling the truth.

The Title IX investigation, which they sought to conceal by unlawfully swapping witness and complainant roles, was indeed a simple one. The university should have concluded it in the sixty days allotted by law. But they missed the sixty-day deadline. Then they granted themselves another sixty-day deadline. After they missed that deadline, they granted themselves an indefinite extension. Then, they restarted the entire investigation. Naturally, this caused them to miss the third (and undetermined) deadline.

In a nutshell, UNCW repeatedly violated procedure in an effort to hide the obvious fact that one of their administrators was violating Title IX by engaging in blatant sex discrimination. They could not bear to admit that the office they established to fight sexism was engaging in sexism. They were hesitant to fire a feminist administrator for advancing rather than fighting gender discrimination.

But reality caught up with UNCW. In the midst of the investigation, which stretched on for over two hundred days, the director of the WSRC announced her resignation. UNCW feared their WSRC director was a legal liability – not because she was a sexist but because she was not shrewd enough to hide it. So the university ultimately conceded wrongdoing, right? Wrong.

On May 7^th, nearly seven months after the complaint was filed, the university Title IX Office issued this ruling:

The university has concluded its fact-finding review of the gender discrimination complaint against the Women’s Studies Resources Center and the director, (name withheld). After careful consideration of all facts, the fact finders were unable to substantiate a violation of university polices by a preponderance of the evidence. However, in the course of this inquiry, concerns were raised about the governance of the organization that will be addressed by university leadership.

We ask that you maintain confidentiality of this matter and refrain from discussing it with anyone at UNCW other than those who have a business to know. If you have any questions related to this matter please contact me at (number withheld).

This is a stunning admission, given that two women accused one of engaging in sex discrimination. There were only two possible outcomes. Let’s walk through both:

1. The feminist director of the WSRC admits that she denied funding on the basis of gender. Therefore, all three witnesses to the conversation over funding are in agreement. Since preponderance of evidence is a “probably” or “more likely than not” standard, the standard is satisfied by the evidence.
2. The feminist director of the WSRC denies that she denied funding on the basis of gender. Therefore, two of the three witnesses to the conversation over funding are in agreement. Since preponderance of evidence is a “probably” or “more likely than not” standard, the standard is satisfied by the evidence.

This is all simple logic. The preponderance standard could only not be met if one concludes that two conservative women combined are less than one feminist. That unfortunate conclusion is explained by the fact that the Title IX Office, like the WSRC, is run by ideologues.

Changing WSRC directors is a good start. But “The Dub” should also replace its Title IX lawyer. Fortunately, I have filed a formal complaint with the Office for Civil Rights. The matter of funding discrimination is now being investigated by the Trump Department of Education.

I simply will not tolerate feminist collusion or obstruction of justice. This investigation is far from over.

Mike S. Adams is a criminology professor, the author of Letters to a Young Progressive, and a columnist at Townhall and the Daily Wire. Follow him on Twitter @MikeSAdams.

On Monday, NBC’s “The Good Place” actress Jameela Jamil suggested children are better off being killed by abortion in the womb than living a life that would include placement in foster care.

The actress, who is consistently promoting social justice causes, made the statement while criticizing Georgia’s new pro-life legislation, commonly known as the “heartbeat bill.” The law bans abortion after an unborn baby’s heartbeat can be detected, which is typically around six weeks gestation.

“This anti-abortion law in Georgia is so upsetting, inhumane, and blatantly demonstrative of a hatred of women, a disregard for our rights, bodies, mental health, and essentially a punishment for rape victims, forcing to carry the baby of their rapist,” claimed the 33-year-old.

This is incorrect, however, as the law has an explicit caveat for rape, incest, and the life of the mother.

Jamil continued, revealing that she had an abortion when she was younger, which she called “the best decision” she’s ever made, and suggesting death-by-abortion is more optimal than placement in foster care:

“I had an abortion when I was young, and it was the best decision I have ever made. Both for me, and for the baby I didn’t want, and wasn’t ready for, emotionally, psychologically and financially. So many children will end up in foster homes. So many lives ruined. So very cruel.”

After swift backlash over the comments, Jamil added a third tweet to her thread some twenty minutes later to clarify her remarks — sort of. According to the actress, only some kids would be better off being killed via abortion than living in foster care, because not “ALL” foster parents are bad.

“Ps.. this isn’t any diss at ALL to foster homes. I’m in awe of people who take in children in need of a family and a home: but if Georgia becomes inundated with children who are unwanted or unable to be cared for, it will be hard to find great fostering for them all,” she wrote.

Jamil posted her controversial comments captioning a piece from Slate, titled “Georgia Just Criminalized Abortion. Women Who Terminate Their Pregnancies Would Receive Life in Prison.”

This is also untrue, as outlined on Tuesday by The Daily Wire. The law applies to third parties committing the abortion. For example, an abortionist providing an illegal abortion, or a man beating a woman and killing her baby, would be in deep legal trouble for murder; not the woman so-called “self-terminating.”

“The heartbeat bill did not repeal a number of Georgia criminal statutes that explicitly apply to abortions and unborn children, and it does not overrule controlling legal authority holding that these statutes bar prosecution of a woman for terminating her own pregnancy,” explained conservative columnist David French at National Review.

And, again, the law provides exemptions in cases of rape, incest, and the life of the mother:

Related: The Media Are Lying To You About Georgia’s Pro-Life ‘Heartbeat Bill.’ Here’s The Truth.

The following is satirical.

According to MRC Newsbusters, there are now more prostitutes, witches and people who keep chickens as pets than there are viewers of CNN.

Fred Darnley, who keeps a pet chicken named Feathers, says he prefers his chicken to CNN because, "A chicken won’t just sit there and lie to you all the time, and if it really gets on your nerves you can fry the damn thing up and eat it, whereas most of those CNN anchormen are dishonest and taste like crap."

Prostitute Marva Wodolynski, also known as Crystal, Candy, Brandy, Amber or whatever the hell else you want to call her, says she prefers being a streetwalker to watching CNN because, "I perform a service for people. I make them happy for a few minutes before leaving them feeling empty and degraded. And they get to choose which lie I tell them instead of listening to this Trump-Russia nonsense all the time. I mean, face it, ‘Oh, baby, you’re the best I’ve ever had,’ is just a lot more plausible than the stuff Don Lemon or Chris Cuomo says, plus my job takes more brains than those guys have put together."

And finally, practicing witch Tiffany Bernstein says she prefers casting spells and performing wicca ceremonies because, "They may be utterly useless made up garbage, but at least there are no cable fees."

CNN News Director Dimly Gormless, in a statement delivered between heaving sobs, told anyone who would listen, "I think we need a news business model. We’ve tried calling Trump racist, fascist and a Russian spy, but the problem is: the viewers can get that at all the other networks, plus they have situation comedies. For the new rating season we’re going with Trump is an invading alien sent by Satan to destroy us. That at least is original."

Gormless says CNN toyed with the idea of just reporting the news honestly, but it would’ve been too expensive to hire journalists.