He says he’s not gay. I couldn’t care less. The police report is highly uneventful and hardly worth the media fanfare covering the minor charges of “interference with privacy” and “disorderly conduct,” but he pleaded guilty anyway, and now regrets admitting guilt. With good reason too, as the available evidence would probably not have held up in court had Craig fought the charges.
But is he a hypocrite, as many have suggested, for being a conservative Republican while living a liberal social life? Hardly. Gays don’t have to support the legislation pushed by the homosexual lobby. You can be gay and oppose same-sex marriage at the same time. Blacks don’t have to support affirmative action. Women don’t have to support abortion. Christians don’t have to support prayer in schools.
Let’s not be so quick to accuse everyone of being a self-hater because they live a life that supposedly doesn’t fit their voting record. Let’s especially not use this incident to encourage Senator Craig to shed his conservative ideology and come out as the next gay-rights crusader.
So I like blue not because my father beat out of me any preference for a less patriarchal color and got to me before Mattel did? I don’t think the pink-rejecting feminists will get a kick out of this:
LONDON (Reuters) – Boys like blue, girls like pink and there isn’t much anybody can do about it, researchers said on Monday in one of the first studies to show scientifically that there are gender-based color preferences.
Researchers said these differences may have a basis in evolution in which females developed a preference for reddish colors associated with riper fruit and healthier faces.
Recent studies have suggested there is a universal preference for “blue,” and there has not been much previous evidence to support the idea of sex differences when picking colors, said Anya Hurlbert, a neuroscientist at Newcastle University who led the study.
In the study, the researchers asked a group of men and women to look at about 1,000 pairs of colored rectangles on a computer screen in a dark room and pick the ones they liked best as quickly as possible.
Afterwards, Hurlbert and colleagues plotted the results along the color spectrum and found that while men prefer blue, women gravitate towards the pinker end of the blue spectrum.
For men, thinking about colors was less important because as hunters they just needed to spot something dark and shoot it, Hurlbert said.
Kim Gandy of the National Organization for Women resents the success of a book that teaches boys to be boys:
One of this year’s best-selling books, The Dangerous Book for Boys by Conn and Hal Iggulden, attempts to re-engage boys (and their dads) in the art of tying knots and building tree houses. While it may be a noble endeavor to inspire an interest in nature and hands-on adventure in today’s kids, why should this message be geared specifically toward boys? Proponents of single-sex education must love this book, with its message that boys and girls are “quite different.”
Because boys and girls are “quite different.” Because girls prefer dolls and makeup to skinned knees and tree climbing. Because delusional feminists refuse to acknowledge the basic but obvious gender differences that explain why a majority of young girls would be wholly uninterested in a book about tying knots.
Feminists dream of a completely gender-neutral society where boys are equally encouraged to play with Barbies and easy bake ovens. In anticipation of the day when boys will be born with uteruses, they are trying to stop the supposed gender-role stereotypes that “The Dangerous Book for Boys” perpetuates.
Is life for young girls so miserable that they must be included in every activity once considered a boy’s hobby? I don’t foresee too many men complaining when “The Dangerous Book for Girls” is released in the near future.