Search the Community

"Gough Whitlam must be turning in his grave. The Great Man dedicated his life to the principles of the Age of Enlightenment: that rational, evidence-based argument could create a better and fairer society. Not only is the post-structuralist agenda anti-reason, anti-science and anti-family, it is also anti-education." From reason to radicalism: Gender fluidity May 30, 2016 11:30pm Mark Latham The Daily Telegraph The more I research the BRR and Safe Schools programs, the more bewildered I am as to how Labor leaders like Bill Shorten and Daniel Andrews endorsed this rubbish, says Mark Latham. WHEN John Maynard Keynes declared “Madmen in authority, who hear voices in the air, are distilling their frenzy from some academic scribbler a few years back”, he knew what he was talking about. The craziest trend in Australian politics is to teach Neo-Marxist genderless programs in our schools through the Orwellian-named Safe Schools and Building Respectful Relationships (BRR) curriculum. Even though Australian students are falling down the international league tables in maths, science and English, teachers are devoting class-time to the mechanics of breast-binding and penis-tucking. As Keynes envisaged, the thinking behind this madness is distilled from an academic scribbler a few years back. BRR’s author, Debbie Ollis from Deakin University, has attributed the intellectual inspiration for the program to a “post-structural understanding of gender construction”, drawing on the work of a Welsh academic Christine Weedon in her book Feminist Practice and Poststructuralist Theory. To understand what’s happening in today’s Labor Party and its attitude to education, Weedon’s tome is compulsory reading. I got my copy last week from the NSW State Library and was spellbound by its contents. Parents deserve to know where the Safe Schools and BRR philosophy comes from, and Weedon brazenly sets out the ideology behind these new teaching materials. Post-structuralism argues for a different way of looking at society, especially in understanding the nature of knowledge and learning. Since the rise of the 18th century Age of Enlightenment, people have applied reason, rationality and observable truths in trying to build a better life. Weedon regards this process as inherently misleading. She thinks that from our first moments alive, we are brainwashed into accepting the social order around us. Governments, schools, churches, the media, popular culture and even fashion trends combine to reinforce the “power relations” and dominance of capitalism. The things we know from observing nature and studying science are dismissed as “biological determinism”. Former Labor leader Mark Latham /. Picture: Ian Currie So too notions of truth, commonsense and life-experience are disparaged as “historical constructs” — delivering “false consciousness” and tricking people into a misunderstanding of their best interests. For Weedon, the process of social conditioning denies its “own partiality”. “It fails to acknowledge that it is but one possible version of meaning, rather than ‘truth’ itself and that it represents particular (political) interests.” For instance, growing up with two straight parents is said to “lead to the acquisition by children of a heterosexual gendered identity”. Weedon writes of how: “For young girls, the acquisition of femininity involves a recognition that they are already castrated like their mother”, forcing them to submit to patriarchy, or male dominance. No one is immune from the process of false gender identity. Individuals are said to be “sexual beings from birth”, reflected in the “initial bisexuality of the child”. This is the kind of thinking behind the Start Early program developed by Early Childhood Australia (ECA), which teaches childcare and preschool infants about sexuality, cross-dressing and the opposite sex’s toilets. An ECA spokeswoman has said that, “(young) children are sexual beings, it’s a strong part of their identity’’. Most parents would be horrified by this stance but it’s become commonplace in the Australian education system. Having lost the battle for economic and foreign policy in the 1980s, Neo-Marxists embarked on a long march through the institutions of the public sector, especially universities and schools. Indoctrination programs like Safe Schools, BRR and Start Early are the inevitable result. This breaks the longstanding, bipartisan practice in Australian politics of keeping ideology out of schools. The purpose of a quality education has been to equip young people with the knowledge and vocational skills of a civilised society. If graduating students wish to pursue social and political change, they can do so through the democratic process in their adult years. Education has been relatively free from ideological indoctrination. But this is not the view of the new curriculum designers, with Ollis depicting schools as “in a unique position to educate for social change”. Weedon also said she wants to engineer an androgynous “ungendered” society through classroom tutoring. The other key Leftist battleground is for the control of language. Inspired by French post-structuralist Michel Foucault, Weedon writes, “If language is the site where meaningful experience is constituted (in capitalist societies) then language also determines how we perceive possibilities of change”. This is why Safe Schools seeks to eradicate the use of terms like “his and her” and “boys and girls”. It believes genderless language will produce a genderless generation of young Australians, self-selecting their sexuality as a fluid identity. Political correctness is not an accident, a random form of censorship. It’s a carefully targeted campaign designed to outlaw the language of observable facts in the discussion of race, gender and sexuality. For every commonsense ­aspect of life, there’s a PC push to eliminate identity differences. Weedon writes of how the “dominant meanings of language” force boys and girls “to differentiate between pink and blue and to understand their social connotations”. “Little girls should look pretty and be compliant and helpful, while boys should be adventurous, assertive and tough … (shaping) their future social destinations within a patriarchal society”. This pink/blue phobia is the basis of the Leftist ‘‘No Gender December’’ campaign, trying to outlaw gender-specific toys each year at Christmas. The more I research the BRR and Safe Schools programs, the more bewildered I am as to how Labor leaders like Bill Shorten and Daniel Andrews endorsed this rubbish. Gough Whitlam must be turning in his grave. The Great Man dedicated his life to the principles of the Age of Enlightenment: that rational, evidence-based argument could create a better and fairer society. Not only is the post-structuralist agenda anti-reason, anti-science and anti-family, it is also anti-education. It wants to abandon the conventional process of learning through known facts and universally established truths, creating a borderless world of genderless individuals. Australia’s political leaders are sleepwalking into an educational disaster. As parents we need to make our views known to election candidates and school leaders alike. Anyone who has researched this issue will know we are fighting for the future of our civilisation. Source http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/from-reason-to-radicalism-gender-fluidity/news-story/832eb330f1e68c0af8ab37521dc402d7#load-story-comments

this is an excerpt from my blog i've been sitting on for a while preface: i will be using the terms “man” and “woman” in a general sense, though i understand that there are some exceptions, just like a horse by definition has 4 legs, but sometimes they are born with 3, however that doesn’t make that animal not-a-horse. so please, contain your exceptions until the end. theory: the use of the word “objectification” (labeling) is a woman’s way of saying she feels uncomfortable in the face of the fact that a man is sexually attracted to her, or another woman. but instead of being honest about her own discomfort, she uses the term “objectification” to turn the blame on the man. just like how a priest uses the term “sin” to turn the blame on other people when his prophecies and predictions don’t come true. the words “sin” and “objectification” are nearly identical in practice because neither are rationally defined by an external method, and instead are used to absorb anything that the user feels uncomfortable in response to, and then masquerades this as a universally applicable concept, not a personal preference. there is, of course, nothing wrong with being uncomfortable. i encourage everyone to speak up about things that make them uncomfortable, with the understanding that your discomfort does not generate an obligation in other people to cater to it. what is wrong, however, is lying. claims of objectification are dishonest, because objectification is not defined by any objective standard, just like pejoratives. since there are no objective standards for detecting objectification, any claims of objectification are dishonest because no proof is possible until there are objective and testable hypothesis for determining the presence of objectification. for a better explanation of why it is a lie, see my article about the dishonesty of pejoratives. so if claims of objectification are dishonest, what is the incentive for their use? here is a utilitarian cost-benefit analysis: benefits: 1. causes man to feel moral dilemma over being attracted to a woman, thus pausing his pursuit. if he is a good man, he will take a while to process this moral dilemma, or he may disregard the claim, because he does not know what is meant by objectification. 2. woman eliminates what she believes to be the source of her discomfort in the short term. 3. woman discovers a short-term degree of power to mitigate the amount of attention she receives. costs: 1. a good man will continue to be confused about whether or not his own attraction is objectification or not, possibly causing long-term harm to other romantic investments. 2. man associates the confusion with the woman, instead of the foggy concept of objectification. 3. the woman drives away good men who can detect this strategy. after this strategy is foiled, she must either invest in a new social group or a new strategy for mitigating male attention. what are your thoughs? do you have anything to add or correct?

In response to Stef's "The Truth About Makeup" video I've published a video on the male equivalent of makeup. Hope you enjoy! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqsjnLvd62Y&feature=youtu.be

In this video I present a theory about why gender ideologues behave the way they do and how it stems from a fatalistic worldview. What are the logical consequences of portraying something as male or female nature? Who is culpable? Special thanks to Joel Patterson for his help with the script for this video, and for being the awesome guy that he is. You can check out his material here on YouTube, here: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCq60FZi48OeHw_TfZP1aGww

I made a second video. This time about gender equality. I don't think it's such the great thing that people love to say that it is, and here's my thinking on that: I'd love to hear what you think!

In a recent call-in show I hear Stef saying that a good question to ask a date is what they think the other gender brings to the table in a relationship (or to the world as a whole). (As in "What do men/women bring to the world/partnership/marriage?") I find that question extremely difficult to answer for me, no matter which gender. Maybe it's just my huge lack of experience in dating (never had a girlfriend so far and basically never had a date, am 30 years old atm), but I find it hard to think in terms of genders in such a manner. Like I don't think I would ever say that "men" as a whole bring (or don't bring) anything particular to the world/partnership and I wouldn't even know what that could be. And the same with women of course. I don't know if anyone has any pointers/opinions on that please let me know. And/Or How would you answer that question when asked by your date?

A woman walked down the street and was compli- oops I mean harassed several hundreds of times. Here's the article- if you can stomach it. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/artic... Or if you prefer feminist drivel spaced out with actual intelligent commentary (the Scottish accents just a bonus...) support 6oodfella, give 'im a like! I think he makes a great point. (well a number of great points, but this one in particular.) I just think it's unbelieveable that all these feminists get on tumblr and bitch about how compliments are harassment and sitting on a bus is sexist then mozy their way over to some BS site like "thought catalog" (yes it's a thing, no, you shouldn't go there.) to complain about how men never make the first move, men are afraid to get married, men aren't as confident as they used to be... we no SHIT! ugh. This world is so sick.

http://ftrhuman.blogspot.com/2014/11/feminism-part-1-gender-pay-gap.html Thoughts on this would be appreciated.

We have all been there, exiting Whole Foods and there is someone petitioning for you to sign something regarding Gay Rights, The Environment, or something else the U.S. government has destroyed for centuries. And the tool that they are going to use... You guessed it... THE GOVERNMENT! Yesterday, I was exiting whole foods and I got asked "Do you support gay rights?" "Yes, of course, but are you trying to get a new law passed?" "yes." "Well I certainly don't want any more of those! Thank you" ....then he says... "ENJOY YOUR PRIVILEGE" So... needless to say, I turned around engaged in a 5 minute debate of sorts.. Kind of fun, they are sitting ducks, so don't pick on them. But the reality is, any time you waste of theirs is time people aren't signing their petition to enact a new law, so it is time well spent. Btw, he was trying to get an anti-bullying law passed so that all public school teachers would be forced to offer an anti-bullying course, particularly for the lesbian and gay community. The first question I ask is "How long have you been in California?" "Ten years..." "Ok cool. And how long do you think insurance companies would have been recognized same-sex couples and certain hospitals would have allowed same-sex couples to visit each other in critical care, if it weren't for the laws that made it illegal in the State of California?" "Probably decades!" "Ok great... so now, you are telling me.. you are going to go to same exact people.. to ask for your rights back? With the same exact tool of democratic voting (democratic totalitarianism)." Long story short.. The product: "Uphold the rights of minorities!" Brought to you by the same people who gave you crowd sensations like: SlaveryJim Crow Laws 1,000,000 Dead Iraqi's The Prison Industrial Complex The War on Drugs The War on Terror Genocide of the Native Americans Followed by Welfare Enslavement NSA Spying National Debt Enslaving Future Generations Japanese Internment Camps Inflation Robbing The Lower Classes of Their Wealth The Suppression of Gay Rights "Ok, the government has done some bad thing IN THE PAST BUT without the government, minorities rights can't be protected!" The Truth: Without the government, you can not suppress the rights of minorities because you can not impose the oppressive views of the mob rule majority. During slavery, when run away slaves were caught, they were returned to their masters by the police. The police of course were paid for through taxation. Meaning slavery was subsidized by the government aka the tax payer. It also means, that every slave knew that if he did escape he would almost always be returned. This, of course, made it extremely unlikely for slaves to try to run. Now, imagine if the slave owner had to pay his OWN police force to be constantly roaming the land looking for run away slaves. It completely changes the business model and makes it entirely inefficient. And THIS the exact same system and people we are supposed to going to look for protection of the rights of minorities. Tell me how this blatant contradiction isn't the result of indoctrination and propaganda! As in, if there was ANYONE BESIDES THE GOVERNMENT with the same track record, would you even consider going to them for the protection of minorities rights? Let's say a few years ago, CHICK FILA and its affiliates singlehandedly caused the Japanese Internment Camps, but now they are under new management. Would you then willingly go to them to say, "Oh yeah, I know you guys kind of dropped the ball in the past. But we would really like gay marriage to be legalized, I know how good you are at helping the rights of minorities." At the end of the conversation, he says, "Well, I would continue this conversation, but I am trying to get people to sign up. So enjoy your PRIVILEGE!" (He has used that phrase several times in the conversation) So I stop. And loudly say. "EVERYONE LISTEN. This person is trying got get an ANTI BULLYING law passed, while constantly calling me "PRIVILEGED" in a derogatory axion, because I am a white male. And he assumes, I am not a minority. But the beauty of this is. I AM GAY. And he has not only jumped to conclusions about me based on my looks, he is bullying me based on those conclusions." I let him with a pretty funny expression on his face. Happy Anarching.

A very interesting discussion on masculinity and the challenges and issues for men today. One of the guests in Jordan Peterson and he would be a good guest to have on the show on these issues IMO. Hits on alot of important points and interpretations.

This is a damn good and relevant episode http://podcasts.joerogan.net/podcasts/gad-saad