Mamas Don’t Let Your Babies Grow Up To Be Fem’nists
Don’t let ’em grieve men or choose man-boy cucks
Let ’em be true wives and mothers and such
Mamas Don’t Let Your Babies Grow Up To Be Fem’nists
‘Cause they’ll never stay sane and they’re always irate
When lookin’ for someone to hate
The picture is snapshot from the site Everyday Feminism, where I was directed to read the story “3 Ways to Help Combat Ableism and Saneism in Schools”. The “Saniesm” was later removed and replaced with “Mental Health Stigma”, but because of the way WordPress (which I assume they’re using) makes post URL’s, you can see the original “saneism” if you look at the address bar, which ends “ableism-saneism-in-schools”.
Anyway, saneism. Non nuts are privileged! And just what are you going to do about it, ladies? How about become a feminist? Best way to do that is through indoctrination. From the article:
As more and more schools recognize the importance of incorporating social justice topics and consent into the classroom, it’s important to recognize how the US education system has so far not only failed to contest ableism and [saneism], but also fails to challenge schools’ reinforcing these forms of oppression.
Recognizing the sane—being sane, even—is now an form of oppression. Ladies & gentlemen, home schooling is still an option. Until the SJWs convince the government to disallow outside accreditation.
[C]lassrooms can integrate books written by, about, and depicting disabled folks. Political science and history classes can and should discuss the historical and contemporary reality of violence against disabled people and individuals with mental illnesses, such as police violence against mentally ill individuals. Relatedly, classes could discuss various social justice activist movements like the Section 504 Sit-In of the 1970s.
Never mind, never mind. How about that chicky who wrote “18 Ways My Privilege Shows Up As a Westernized Asian American”? Here is one of her major complaints about life:
2. When Traveling in Non-Western Countries, I Receive Better Customer Service
People see my watercolor tattoos and trendy buzz cut as indicators of foreign money. Cab drivers in the Philippines stop for me if I stand right at the curb — after driving past my friends whom they read as locals.
Foreigners in the PI are suspected to have more money than locals? Who knew?
Hyper-sensitivity and hysterical over-reaction to imagined sleights are the hallmarks of feminism. As in the penchant for incoherence:
7. I’m Often Welcomed into Spaces Because I’m the ‘Right’ Kind of Person of Color to Diversify Your Space
Just “exotic” enough to visibly up the diversity index. Just “American” enough that I can appear to “belong” (thin, light-skinned, with an ability to follow white people’s social cues and no discernible Filipino accent).
Hey, I’m all for ignoring this woman if that will please her more and confirm her official victim status. Then she can return to her true pleasure, which evidently is railing about being ignored for not being white.
“Low hanging fruit, Briggs.”
Well, sure. But it’s abundant. And here’s what happens when the rotten fruit from the Tree of Feminism is eaten. We get the peer-reviewed paper “Chemistry inside an epistemological community box! Discursive exclusions and inclusions in Swedish National tests in Chemistry” in Cultural Studies of Science Education by two female feminists. The Abstract (emphasis and paragraphinations mine: you heard me: paragraphinations):
This study examined the Swedish national tests in chemistry for implicit and explicit values…The Swedish national science assessments aim to support equitable and fair evaluation of students, to concretize the goals in the chemistry syllabus and to increase student achievement.
Discourse and multimodal analyses, based on feminist and critical didactic theories, were used to examine the test’s norms and values.
The results revealed that the chemistry discourse presented in the tests showed a traditional view of science from the topics discussed (for example, oil and metal), in the way women, men and youth are portrayed, and how their science interests are highlighted or neglected.
An elitist view of science emerges from the test, with distinct gender and age biases. Students could interpret these biases as a message that only “the right type” of person may come into the chemistry epistemological community, that is, into this special sociocultural group that harbours a common view about this knowledge.
…Understanding the underlying evaluative meanings that come with science teaching is a question of democracy since it may affect students’ feelings of inclusion or exclusion. The norms and values harboured in the tests will also affect teaching since the teachers are given examples of how the goals in the syllabus can be concretized.
Could? May? Feelings? Feminism is feelings.
Feelings, nothing more than feelings,
Trying to forget my feelings of love.
Teardrops rolling down on my face,
Trying to forget my feelings of love.
Mamas, Don’t Let Your Babies Grow Up To Be Fem’nists
It is exhausting to simply exist today. EVERYTHING is an indication of how others perceive me, and I have to be outraged by it all! Ignore me — I’m outraged. Treat me badly — I’m outraged. Treat me well — I’m outraged. Don’t even come near me because you are doing something else? I’m outraged!
Something believed to be cunning and dexterous but isn’t?
A stage magician might consider this a slight.
One way to combat outrageism: The Indiana Jones solution. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vdnA-ESWcPs
Metaphorically, of course.
The point is made starting at the 2 minute mark.
Here’s a good example, not quoted from the referenced article, that illustrates the mindset of the ilk hold such views as ‘privilege’ & so forth:
“Political science and history classes can and should discuss the historical and contemporary reality of violence against disabled people and individuals with mental illnesses, …”
WHY the emphasis on presenting victimization vs. positive examples (e.g. President FDR who carried on despite polio)? Because those espousing such views are themselves emotionally damaged. What they want is society that accepts physical & mental handicaps as “normal” as opposed to abnormal — if they succeed they have zero incentive to heal, or at least develop wholesome coping mechanisms (obviously not all handicaps can be completely overcome). This is the emotional viewpoint of a child (or in the case of much of what’s seen in this area, adults who have never matured) who want to be pampered by their parents, and after that, society at large — people who do not want to mature into real adults. Or, as Dr. Rossiter put it:
“These longings to be taken care of, to be relieved of the responsibilities of adult life, have their origins in infancy. They are properly satisfied in the dependent attachments of children to their parents. They are not properly satisfied in the dependent attachment of adults to the state. Instead, the gradual replacement of the dependency longings of the child with mature capacities for competent self-reliance and cooperation with others, as opposed to parasitism on the state, is a critical developmental goal. Whether or not that goal is achieved has profound implications for the nature and extent of government in a given society.”
– See: http://www.libertymind.com (ref the book excerpts…read the book if you can)
“Attachment” in the above refers to wholesome psychological development; when this is thwarted, where the parent & child have a toxic emotional bond, the child’s emotional development is stunted, perhaps permanently, in very predictable and consistent ways relative to particular types of interpersonal dysfunction.
Margaret Mead & many others, from various different vantage points, warned of this decades ago becoming a social phenomena with the breakdown of the “nuclear” (two-parent) family by M. Mead, for example, and rising divorce rates overall. Much of the family breakdown stems from the well-intentioned but misguided “Great Society” programs that created incentives leading to single-parent child-raising, often with no father figure at all –that impacting particular poorer subgroups of U.S. society disproportionately; and, the growing need for both parents to work to maintain a familiar standard of living leaving the children with much less coupled with much more inconsistent parental nurturing.
In lay terms, the rise in such nonsense as discussed in today’s essay comes as no surprise; the rise in observed narcissism/narcissistic tendencies even more broadly was similarly predicted and comes as no surprise.
Briggs’ remark, “Hyper-sensitivity and hysterical over-reaction to imagined sleights are the hallmarks of feminism” — That kind of sensitivity and over-reaction is a classic example of what is called “emotional reasoning” which is the inability (or unwillingness) to distinguish one’s feelings from actual facts; “reality testing” is used to resolve this … and this is something many of us do unconsciously all the time (e.g. You see a friend across the street and call out to her. She doesn’t acknowledge you and continues walking. As a result, you [if you’re an emotional reasoner] become angry and hurt because you assume that your friend rudely ignored you. In reality, your friend had her iPod on and didn’t hear you calling to her — a conclusion, or guess, most of us would conclude if we’d also noticed the iPod & earphones and as a result wouldn’t feel hurt/slighted at all).
Emotional reasoning is a very primitive defense mechanism — and wherever one observes this in another (not once in a while, but as a clear pattern) one can be certain the emotional reasoner is psychologically damaged. People so damaged almost always have along with this defense mechanism the need to blame others — often to an extent that includes lying to such an extent it can include confabulations (they truly believe their own lies) and constitute an offensive tactical maneuver to not only defend the emotional reasoner from objective facts they find unsettling, but become so overt as to become an overt effort to destroy the source(s) of the emotions.
What we are seeing with nonsense such as presented here is the ravings of mentally damaged, perhaps overtly mentally ill, people trying to mold society into their madness.
Phoney outrage is rife everywhere and on this blog too.
I blame mannagement.
But I enjoy the feminists. They are an endless source of amusement. They claim there is no difference between men and women then they continually complain about male behavior and how they are victimized and oppressed by the evil men.
I have only one hope left and that is to be interned in the
same FEMA/Gulag camp as Briggs, with the dulcet tones
of NPR radio playing 24/7 in the background.
People who use expressions like “discourse and multimodal analyses,” “feminist and critical didactic theories,” and “the chemistry epistemological community” as if they were meaningful are apt to see the appearance of “oil” and “metal” in a chemistry class as “oppressive.” The fact that roughly 75% of all chemical elements are metals is simply a consequence of patriarchal discursive dominance, not to the fact that they are actually, you know, metals.
YOS — “But… But… We could call them something other than metals. Metal is so metallic. Men use metal to make knives that they use to dominate over us…
Let’s call it something other than metal… ”
They win. How do you even start to fight?
‘How do you even start to fight?’ Brad, you ignore it and it will fizzle.
To take note is to flatter it. Let other women argue with them. Or disabled people or gay men. You guys are proven incompetent in this department. Like taking a bull into a china shop. Leave him tied up outside and take the old lady in who’s wearing kid gloves and is still using her brain.
Joy—No signs of fizzling. Ignoring it just allows it to grow out of control, like cancer.
As the Irishman said.
“If I were going where you’re going I wouldn’t start from here.”
This is great fun. Here’s an article from the lefty Independent arguing that women are more likely to understand the world less than men:
It’s about a study on religious belief, which shows (peer reviewed baby!) that believers understand the world less and since “they also found that people who believe in God and the paranormal are more likely to be women”… well, you connect the dots.
According to the article they also showed that religious people have weaker abilities to understand volcanoes, flowers, rocks and the wind than their heathen brethren!!
I had a suspicion for years that Christians believe that the wind happens when the angels have a good fart, but now i have the p-values to prove it.
Quote IchBinEinBerliner : “I had a suspicion for years that Christians believe that the wind happens when the angels have a good fart, but now i have the p-values to prove it.”
IchBinEinBerliner: Evidence that statistics can prove anything. My favorites are when statistics prove logically contradictory things, like global warming causes warming and cooling. Statistics are sooo fun!