Women are coming forward with sexual assault charges against Republican Presidential Nominee

http://www.diversityinc.com/news/pu-y-grabs-back-new-sexual-assault-claims-against-trump/?


Five women are now on the record describing unwanted sexual advances from Trump, confirming his boasts of entitlement to do so.
By Moses Frenck
The New York Times on Wednesday published a report in which two women said Trump touched them inappropriately without their consent — despite Trump’s insistence during last Sunday’s second presidential debate that he had never engaged in the behavior he bragged about engaging in.
According to the Times, Jessica Leeds and Rachel Crooks decided to tell their stories specifically because Trump denied ever kissing or groping women without their consent when asked repeatedly by CNN’s Anderson Cooper during the debate.
In the Times piece, which includes a video interview, Jessica Leeds, who was 38 at the time and is now 74, said she was on a flight with Trump, sitting next to him in first class.
Leeds describes Trump lifting the armrest and groping her, grabbing her breasts and putting his hand up her skirt. “He was like an octopus,” she said. “His hands were everywhere.”

Crooks told the Times she was kissed by Trump in 2005 when she was a 22-year-old receptionist at a company located in Trump Tower. She said she met Trump outside an elevator and introduced herself, but after they shook hands, Trump would not let go and began kissing her cheeks and “kissed me directly on the mouth,” Crooks told the Times.
“It was so inappropriate,” she said. “I was so upset that he thought I was so insignificant that he could do that.”
Related Story: Obama Says Trump’s Comments on Women Disqualifying
Meanwhile, the Palm Beach Post reported that a third woman says Trump grabbed her inappropriately while at his Mar-A-Lago resort in Florida 13 years ago. “Donald just grabbed my ass,” she told a friend immediately after Trump groped her, according to the Post.
None of the women pursued legal action, but the Times and Palm Beach Post spoke with friends and family of the women who said the women had discussed the incidents with them when they happened.
While the Trump campaign denied the allegations, a Clinton campaign statement said, “This disturbing story sadly fits everything we know about the way Donald Trump has treated women. These reports suggest that he lied on the debate stage and that the disgusting behavior he bragged about in the tape is more than just words.”
On Wednesday night, People Magazine published a report by one of its writers, who said she herself was physically attacked by Trump at his Palm Beach resort.
Writer Natasha Stoynoff said she was on assignment at Mar-A-Lago in December writing a profile of Trump’s one-year anniversary with Melania. When a pregnant Melania went upstairs during a break, Trump took Stoynoff into a room and “within seconds he was pushing me against the wall and forcing his tongue down my throat.”
Another woman who CNN anchor Erin Burnett has known for years, did not wish to be identified but has told of being sexually assaulted by Trump.
Related Story: Trump Defends Roger Ailes: He ‘Helped’ Women
Trump Supporters Call to Repeal Women’s Right to Vote
The ongoing revelations of Trump’s views and behavior toward women have continued to erode his support among women, leading to a poll released Tuesday showing a Trump win would be guaranteed if only men voted. The solution per Trump supporters: repeal the 19th Amendment to the Constitution, which in 1920 gave women the right to vote.
The hashtag #RepealThe19th was trending on Twitter Wednesday, with Trump supporters — both men and women — fantasizing over a male-only electorate.
Tweets from female Trump supporters included statements such as: “I would gladly waive my right to vote to solidify the win!” or the similar sentiment, “I would be willing to give up my right to vote to make this happen,” and even “Men should never have given women the right to vote.”
The Twitter commentary was in response to an analysis published by Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight that showed if only women voted, Hillary Clinton would win the election with 458 electoral votes over Trump’s 80. Meanwhile, if only men voted, Trump would win 350 electoral votes over Clinton’s 188. A candidate needs 270 electoral votes to win.

The United States of Women vs. The United States of Menhttps://t.co/F455bP3D8I pic.twitter.com/qjr6zLh640

— 538 politics (@538politics) October 12, 2016

Silver, a statistician and journalist who founded FiveThirtyEight (the name taken from the 538 total voters in the Electoral College), correctly predicted the winner in 49 of the 50 states in the 2008 presidential election and the winner of all 50 states in the 2012 presidential election.
The analysis published Tuesday was in the aftermath of video released last week where Trump boasted about his entitlement to kiss and grope women without their consent. The analysis did not include bombshell allegations of actual kissing and groping reported Wednesday.
With regard to repealing the 19th Amendment, the irony here is twofold:
First, Trump supporters claim to be staunch supporters of the Constitution. Despite countless innocent people killed shooting massacres, they oppose any form of gun control, saying the Second Amendment cannot be tampered with. Yet, when women denounce a sexual predator, they call for the 19th Amendment to be gutted without hesitation.
Second, in order to repeal the 19th Amendment, two-thirds of both the House of Representatives and the Senate would need to vote in favor of such an action. Approximately 20 percent of Congress currently consists of women.

The science behind Women's Orgasm - ummmh!

Salon / By Tracy Clark-Flory - What's the Scientific Reason Women Have Orgasms?


A popular theory has been criticized as male-centric, but it might have unexpected feminist results.

October 6, 2011
LIKE THIS ARTICLE ?

Join our mailing list:

Sign up to stay up to date on the latest headlines via email.

TAKE ACTIONChange.org
Get Widget
Start an Online Petition � Decades of research have failed to answer the question of why the female orgasm exists — and two recent conflicting studies on the subject have hardly changed that. Interestingly enough, though, both focus on a theory sure to anger some women: that their ability to climax is the mere byproduct of men’s orgasm, which has a clear evolutionary purpose. We may not have proof of this one way or another, but it’s worth exploring the potential cultural implications.



The most obvious explanation for the female big “O” is that it motivates women to have more sex, resulting in more babies (or, in wonkier terms, “reproductive success”). Another intuitive theory is that it serves to cement feelings of love and intimacy, thereby supporting parental investment. Then there’s the, um, evocatively named “sperm upsuck” theory — that uterine contractions during orgasm help draw in little swimmers. But many of these approaches have been empirically discredited and it’s the “byproduct” theory that has been held in increasing esteem by researchers.



The thinking behind the “male nipples” explanation, as I like to call it, is that women have the tissues and nerve pathways needed for orgasm simply because of their shared embryological origins with males, whose orgasms serve a clear evolutionary purpose. In other words, women have orgasms for the same reason men have nipples. On the face of it, the byproduct theory seems rather male-focused and maybe even anti-feminist. It falls right in step with the Freudian notion of women’s penis envy: Men have prominent, easily orgasmic members, while we ladies are stuck with our itty-bitty imitator, the clitoris.



But as Elisabeth Lloyd, a philosopher of biology, argued in her 2005 book “The Case of the Female Orgasm: Bias in the Science of Evolution,” “The real problem with this view is that it assumes that in order to be really important, female sexuality, and in particular female orgasm, must have been a direct target of natural selection among females. But there is no reason at all to think that only directly selected traits are ‘important.’” She points to examples of valued traits that aren’t directly selected: “refined musical ability, the ability to design rockets, and even the ability to read.”



On the other hand, it’s also possible that the byproduct view could actually support feminist efforts against the so-called medicalization of female pleasure. “If female orgasm is seen as having no particular evolutionary function, but rather as an evolutionary freebie, then many diagnoses of ‘Female Orgasmic Disorder’ would be out the window, and women anywhere on the spectrum of orgasmic performance might be seen as normal,” Lloyd writes in an upcoming article. She argues that this view, which she refers to as the “fantastic bonus” theory, has the benefit of casting “all women as equally ‘normal’ in their orgasmic responses to heterosexual intercourse. The account expects no particular ‘adaptive’ set of responses to intercourse, and thus privileges none.” Meaning, “women who don’t have orgasm at all are as normal as women who always have orgasm with intercourse.”



That just might throw a wrench into pharmaceutical companies’ machinations over the potential for a “female Viagra.” Speaking of, Leonore Tiefer created the New View Campaign to “challenge the distorted and oversimplified messages about sexuality that the pharmaceutical industry relies on.” She wrote me in an email that an orgasm is “a nice thing,” but “it doesn’t last very long, and it’s not the easiest thing to have, so I think it’s overrated.” Tiefer, a psychiatry professor at New York University, quoted journalist Malcolm Muggeridge: “The orgasm has replaced the cross as the focus of human longing and fulfillment.” That line, she says, “summarizes for me the symbolic importance of the orgasm in contemporary life.” As for the uncertainty surrounding it, she says: “It’s mysterious, I think, because its symbolic value is so high (it ‘proves’ to a partner and to oneself that one is sexual, satisfied, fully female) and yet the material essence is complicated.”



Carol Queen, a legendary staff sexologist at Good Vibrations, isn’t convinced that the female climax is an inherently enigmatic creature. “The idea that women’s orgasm is mysterious is simply cultural, and it has developed in a culture that actively refuses to give its youth good information about sexual functioning, especially arousal and pleasure, and which is loaded with subcultures and communities that actively encourage fear of sex, shame, body image issues, confusion about what sex ‘means,’ and other responses that distance people from sexual possibility and pleasure,” she says. “The idea that women have a difficult time having access to pleasure, or scientists can’t imagine why on earth that pleasure is valuable — that’s just another layer of icing on this icky cake.”



Ultimately, of course, the cultural outcome and feminist analysis of the byproduct theory say nothing of its actual scientific merits. As Lloyd says, “I am not a believer in deriving social norms from biological findings, whether they’re about adaptations or not.” The cultural importance of the female orgasm doesn’t have to be determined by its evolutionary origins. So much in our sexual lives is disconnected from baby-making. And let’s not forget one of the things the birth control pill taught us: separating pleasure from reproduction can be tremendously empowering — and fun.








http://www.alternet.org/story/152641/what%27s_the_scientific_reason_women_have_orgasms?akid=7675.35630.Jub6_m&rd=1&t=24

Understanding the rationale for a federal taxes is a challenge: Understanding gender impacts of crucial importance to women

According to recent statistics, the traditional nuclear family is no longer a reality for more than 50% of Canadians. As taxation systems have largely been built on the old model,


The first requires analysis of where the budget lies on a broad political spectrum. At one end, the budget may follow the mantra of cutting taxes, reducing the deficit and the overall size of government, while focussing on economic competitiveness, the military, and law and order. At the other end, the budget may allow the government role and its expenditures when there are important social, environmental and economic initiatives needed to build a sustainable and inclusive society. Both approaches require a sense of balance, but the fulcrum between investing in public goods and services and freeing the individual will be differently located.

The second requires an analysis of a budget’s gender impact. This may appear to be a relatively simple task. Just examine individual measures to see if their impact on men and women is similar, and if not to determine how they should be adjusted to achieve greater equality of result. In reality, it is never that simple. Expenditures, taxes and debt can be too high or too low for long term wellbeing, for the individual and for society. Add the nation’s role in the international context – peacekeeping, investment, trade and aid – and you have a more formidable task.

The current aim is to restrict the analysis in the interest of gender equality to the gender impact of various tax measures, with some reflections on recent Canadian budgets. Much of my information comes from Kathleen Lahey, a Queens Economics professor I met through FAFIA in New York, and Armine Yalnizyan who FAFIA engaged to analyze the 1995-2005 decade in terms of gender impact.

The Context:
1. While Canada enjoyed #1 spot in UNDP’s Human Development Index (HDI) during the ‘90’s, we have now sunk to #3 in ;01 and #7 in ’06. Our rating on the Gender Development Index (GDI) has been consistently below that on the HDI.Other top ranking countries have continued tom improve their rating.
2. The UN World Economic Forum Gender Gap Index (GGI), based on economic participation and opportunities, educational attainment, political empowerment, health and survival, told a similar story: #14 in ’06, #18 in ’07.
3. These declines have been attributed to women’s different political economy: lower wages, more responsibility for unpaid work, more single parents.
4. Even women with advanced education experienced lower wages, glass ceilings, more child care hours (13/wk for men, 35 for women).
5. The large gender income gap persists until late in life when inheritance and longevity effects appear.
6. Women are less economically competitive throughout their lives, leading to proportionately more: 2nd class incomes, economic dependency, marginalized and interrupted work, poverty, smaller savings , lower retirement benefits, constrained rights to EI, smaller CPP and fewer opportunities for advancement. Race, class and disability further aggravate the inequality.

Taxation and Gender Budgeting (analysis of different impacts on men and women of revenue and expenditure)

1. Income and assets vary by gender; so does taxation even though it may appear neutral. Its impact is affected by economic status and women’s greater need for social services; tax principles, the total impact of the mix of taxes, and the types of credits and deductions (tax expenditures).
2. Governments should report impacts of tax expenditures as they do now giving economic and social impacts of many tax items (estimates of impact, projections of fiscal impact, how calculated and why considered tax expenditures).
3. Graduated income taxes are seen as “progressive”, “fair” or “redistributive” but the way they are graduated makes the difference.
a. In ’89, the number of tax brackets was reduced from 13 to 4, and all shared an exemption of $9600. People with incomes close to $15,000 paid the same tax rate of 15% (+GST/PST of 13-20% depending on the province or territory) as people with incomes close to $30,000. Many more women than men earn at the lower level so more women spend proportionately more of their income on tax.
b. In ’08, the tax rate was reduced from 17% to 15%, still a higher rate than before the above change.
c. Gender Budget Analysis should analyze the impacts on the majority of men and women using pre-1989 rates as their baseline.
4. Payroll taxes:
a. CPP and EI taxes are paid by contributions from both employers and employees (currently CPP $2.475 each = 4.95 % of income; EI $2.42% by employers + $1.73 by employees + 3.9% income, 8.85% in total) with caps for higher income people.
b. Because of these caps, more women will pay a higher proportion of their income for CPP and EI.
c. Because women on average are paid less than men, and are more likely to experience interrupted or marginal work and have lower lifetime income, their benefits and capacity to save are less.
d. Federal income tax rates and GST are common across the country but provincial income tax rates, PST, and other payroll taxes vary so total tax rates will vary.
5. Income Tax Provisions:
a. Women can experience additional disadvantages when adult relationships (spousal or partner) are embedded in the tax structure; e.g. dependent deduction or credit, as women’s economic dependence is reinforced without her having actual control of any funds.
b. Marriage and co-habitation ‘penalty’ taxes such as GST tax credit and Canada Child Tax Benefits (CCTB) are currently the largest forms. They are really social welfare benefits administered through the tax system for lowest income people, among whom women outnumber men. If there is a couple total income limit, the woman who generally has the lower income does not benefit directly unless the partner shares it equally.
c. Joint tax provisions: joint filing or income splitting is the ultimate form but is not yet in the Canadian tax system except for seniors.
d. Other provisions that reinforce women’s vulnerability, economic dependence and poverty (disincentives to enter the labour force and reduce the labour supply) are:
i. Dependent spouse/partner tax credits
ii. Transferable credits
iii. Tax exemption for unpaid work
iv. Caregiver tax credit
v. Child care deduction expense limits
vi. Tax-back of child care expense deductions in the CCTB
vii. Non-deductibility of work-related expenses
viii. Universal child care allowance
6. Urgent Issue: Income Splitting
a. May appear under guise of softening impact of income trust controls
b. No guarantee that lower income person, generally the woman, actually
has control of half the combined income
c. retirement income splitting introduced in 2007 breaking Canadian tradition of capping joint tax instruments to ensure high income people contribute to neediest.
i. single income couples with a single high earner benefit most
ii. the lower income person will have no incentive to take on paid work unless able to earn enough to offset the benefits to the higher income spouse
iii. half the combined incomes may even push both into a higher tax bracket, as well as depriving the unit of unpaid work..
iv. no benefit received by low income people or people needing more retirement income
v. only of slight benefit to middle income people
vi. low income people subsidize high income people
d. Should be top priority if gender budgeting introduced as it changes
principle of entire Income Tax Act (taxing the individual’s income); joint ownership should require a legal agreement, as with CPP splitting and spousal/partner RRSPs.
e. Legally married and common law partners would be affected differently: a spouse reports a fictional share of the other spouse’s income but retains liability for tax owed; if either spouse refuses to pay both portions of the tax, the other spouse will have no legal entitlement to the income of the other spouse from which to pay the tax until death or legal separation
f. A common law partner (in most jurisdictions) will only have a “moral” right to the property, a disincentive to shared ownership, and contrary to the principles of gender equity incorporated in family law since the ‘70s.
g. Pension income splitting benefits higher incomes more (with incomes of >$70,000) higher income married and co-habiting couples at the expense of single and widowed persons, the majority of whom are women. It also weakens the state’s ability to fund other social programs like child care
h. Gender responsive budgeting should focus on the dangers of income
splitting and the negative effects of all other taxes, credits and deductions.

So how does Budget Canada 2008 stack up for women?
Slight gains were made:

1. Tax relief for lower income (women predominate) , but overshadowed by large
tax cuts for upper income
2. Tax free savings plan – benefits some upper income women but of little help to
lower income women who require all their income for basic needs
3. Arm’s length crown corporation established for Employment Insurance gives
fund some more independence, but no changes made in criteria for qualifying or
level of benefits to remove the current disadvantage faced by most women; the
$2m. allocated the crown is very little when compared to the $57.5m.
accumulation in the fund that remained in general revenue
But Major losses were also there:
1. Service expenditure devolved to provinces, abdicating strong role for federal government in providing services of particular value to women largely because of their family caretaking role.
2. No expenditures on a National Early Learning and Child Care program; military expenditures were increased.
3. Role of central government in funding services curtailed; equalization transfers to provinces shifted to per capita base rather than compensation to provinces with lowest per capita tax base.
4. Large allocations to debt reduction potentially of benefit all but of no help for people living below the poverty line.

In balance, the current gender income gap between women and men was widened by Budget 2008 rather than reduced.