Wednesday, January 10, 2018

2018 Will Be the Year Feminists Target Little Boys

Little boys have a way of training their mothers -- mainly by being joyously boyish -- but pity any kid who fell into the hands of the hard-hearted bitch quoted below. I tell my son that real women like real men -- but he has parents who love him so has always been allowed to be himself -- a normal male.

Our permissiveness even extended to allowing him to spend vast amounts of his childhood playing computer games.  Many wiseheads would criticize that.  But now that he is an adult he has a first class honours degree in mathematics, a pretty girlfriend who adores him and a highly paid job as an IT consultant.  A very successful outcome, I think.  He even talks to his old father almost daily

According to Time, all men are inevitably “angry.” The only way to stem this drastic tide of “angry” men is to raise them as follows: "At a young age, this should be done explicitly, in organized forums for discussions at school," Faith Salie writes. "It must be done relentlessly and organically, in our family homes. Parents must invite their sons to be sad, afraid, hurt, silly and affectionate, and must embrace them as often as they snuggle their daughters. Sweet boys learn early on that they can defend themselves against loneliness by reaching out and asking for support rather than turning into people who, literally, grab for power. Sweet boys evolve into open-hearted men who aren’t confused about consent and sexual boundaries, because they experience women as equals."

This, of course, implies that parents of boys naturally tend to push them away and train them to act more like Spartans preparing for perpetual warfare than, well, the children they are. Girls, on the other hand, can be as “fierce” as they like. And if “fierce” requires Spartan parenting skills, I guess that means girls should be, what? Hugged less? Shown Beyonce videos on a repeating track beginning at birth?

Salie exhibits the kind of feminism that held women back in 2017. This was the year in which what was once a powerful cultural movement against gross gender-based inequalities fully pandered to the outrage of its rulers, a minority class of rich, white women with no real problems and plenty of time to kill. Although 2017 is ending with the image of an Iranian woman boldly removing her hijab in a public square, it will forever be defined by the image of American WASPs marching on D.C. in pussyhats. Such is the legacy of a movement defined by women too rich to do any real work and too sheltered to ever experience true suffering.

Hence, the biggest battle in the mind of the American feminist is the one being waged against “angry men.” Forget the fact that for every Harvey Weinstein there is a Chip Gaines or a Linda Sarsour for that matter. In the mind of the American feminist the true battle is being waged, as Salie suggests, in kids’ clothing stores across America:

Walk into any baby store, and you’re greeted immediately in the boys’ department by brown and neon green layettes festooned with sharks, trucks, and footballs. Onesies for newborns declare, “TOUGH LIKE DADDY.” The boy taught from infancy to be tough is emotionally doomed... The clothes marketed to my daughter feature  unicorns, rainbows, rockets, dinosaurs, and sequins in every color imaginable. They are whimsical and sparkly.

Permit me to get truly feminist for a moment and suggest that even the mythical powers of the unicorn are phallic, as is the fencing foil Salie’s daughter crafts out of a kite. But, if a girl is in charge of the pointed object in question it’s perfectly okay. Salie isn’t arguing in favor of gender equality; she’s arguing in favor of stripping all men of their sense of an autonomous self. According to Salie, it isn’t the man himself, but the man who holds a position – any position -- of authority that is truly evil.

Don’t let Salie’s thinly veiled call for (male) empathy fool you. There is no room in her movement for empathy for girls who are forced to defend themselves against the persecution of Islamic clerics, forced genital mutilation, or sex slavery. American feminists don’t talk about having empathy for those women. They simply hashtag them and move on to fight the real battles taking place in select Carter’s and Children’s Place stores all over the country: the battle over whose logo t-shirt is truly the toughest.

2017 isn’t just the year feminism failed women. It is the year feminism failed men. Even more sadly, it is the year feminism encouraged mothers to fail their boys. Raising a child should never involve stripping him of his independence, let alone holding him up to a standard rooted in stereotypes. But, I suppose that’s what happens when you bind yourself to a movement so limited in scope and function that your pussyhat blinds you from looking past the end of your silver spoon—or Target receipt.


Fired ‘Google Memo’ author files lawsuit accusing search giant of discriminating against white males

JAMES Damore, the former Google engineer who was sacked after penning an internal memo criticising the tech giant’s “politically correct” culture and affirmative action hiring policies, has filed a class-action lawsuit against his former employer.

In the 161-page suit, filed in the Santa Clara Superior Court in Northern California on Monday, Mr Damore and another former engineer named David Gudeman accuse Google of discriminating against conservative, white males.

Mr Damore’s 10-page memo, originally posted to an internal Google discussion board, went viral last year after being leaked to tech websites Motherboard and Gizmodo, which “selectively quoted from the memo and misinterpreted it”, the lawsuit says.

The memo’s most controversial claim was to suggest that underrepresentation of women in the tech industry was due to biological differences in behaviour and personality affecting occupational interests at a “population level”, rather than the result of bias or discrimination.

The engineer was quickly sacked for “perpetuating gender stereotypes”, while Google chief executive Sundar Pichai described the memo as “harmful”. “To suggest a group of our colleagues have traits that make them less biologically suited to that work is offensive and not OK,” he wrote in an internal email at the time.

Republican lawyer Harmeet Dhillon, known for taking on high-profile and controversial cases, has brought the case on behalf of Mr Damore, Mr Gudeman and all Google employees “discriminated against due to their perceived conservative political views”, “due to their male gender” or “due to their caucasian race”.

“Google employees who expressed views deviating from the majority view at Google on political subjects raised in the workplace and relevant to Google’s employment policies and its business, such as ‘diversity’ hiring policies, ‘bias sensitivity’, or ‘social justice’, were/are singled out, mistreated and systematically punished and terminated from Google, in violation of their legal rights,” the lawsuit reads.

“Google’s open hostility for conservative thought is paired with invidious discrimination on the basis of race and gender, barred by law.

“Google’s management goes to extreme — and illegal — lengths to encourage hiring managers to take protected categories such as race and/or gender into consideration as determinative hiring factors, to the detriment of Caucasian and male employees and potential employees at Google.”

The suit also accuses Google of discriminating against Asians — the company defined “diverse” individuals, to be funnelled into high-priority hiring queues, as women or “individuals who were not Caucasian or Asian”, it says.

The suit goes on to allege that Mr Damore, Mr Gudeman and others were “ostracised, belittled, and punished for their heterodox political views, and for the added sin of their birth circumstances of being Caucasians and/or males”.

“This is the essence of discrimination — Google formed opinions about and then treated Plaintiffs not based on their individual merits, but rather on their membership in groups with assumed characteristics.”

It says that Mr Damore and others were “openly threatened and subjected to harassment and retaliation from Google” when they challenged Google’s “illegal employment practices”, with Google employees and managers “strongly [preferring] to hear the same orthodox opinions regurgitated repeatedly, producing an ideological echo chamber, a protected, distorted bubble of groupthink”.

According to the lawsuit, after the memo went viral Mr Damore received a late-night email from Alex Hidalgo, a site reliability engineer at Google, which read, “You’re a misogynist and a terrible person. I will keep hounding you until one of us is fired. F*** you.”

The lawsuit accuses Google of creating “an environment of protecting employees who harassed individuals who spoke out against Google’s view or the ‘Googley way’, as it is sometimes known internally”.

After Mr Damore was sacked, Google employees were awarded bonuses for arguing against his political views. The Google Recognition team allows employees to give one another “Peer Bonuses”, typically for “outstanding work performance or for going above and beyond an employee’s job duties”.

In one case, and employee gave a Peer Bonus to a colleague for “speaking up for googley values and promoting [diversity and inclusion] in the wretched hive of scum and villainy that is [Damore’s Memo]”.

“The Google Recognition Team reviewed this justification, considered it appropriate, and allowed the bonus to proceed,” the lawsuit says.

Google is also accused of employing “illegal hiring quotas to fill its desired percentages of women and favoured minority candidates”, while “openly [shaming] managers of business units who fail to meet their quotas — in the process, openly denigrating male and Caucasian employees as less favoured than others”.

“Not only was the numerical presence of women celebrated at Google solely due to their gender, but the presence of Caucasians and males was mocked with ‘boos’ during company-wide weekly meetings,” the lawsuit says.

Other allegations include that Google maintains internal “blacklists” of employees or potential employees who hold or express conservative political views, and even that it maintains “secret blacklists” of conservative authors.

In August 2016, the lawsuit says, conservative blogger Curtis Yarvin, who has reportedly advised Steve Bannon, Peter Thiel and members of the Trump administration, visited the Google office to have lunch with an employee.

“This triggered a silent alarm, alerting security personnel to escort him off the premises,” the lawsuit says. When a Google employee asked HR if writers could be removed from the blacklist, HR “refused to help with the request, and instead, reconfigured the internal system so that it was no longer possible to see who was on the blacklist”.


Judge Rules in Favor of Fired Christian Fire Chief: Gov’t Can’t Put Out Fire of Faith

For more than three decades, Kelvin Cochran built a record of service and expertise that made him one of the most respected Fire Chiefs in the country. He was the first African-American Fire Chief in Shreveport, Louisiana. He was among the responders to Hurricane Katrina. President Obama appointed him as the U.S. Fire Administrator, whose job is to improve both fire prevention and response across the country.

And until a few years ago, he was the Chief of the Atlanta Fire Department, a job he would probably still hold if city officials had any respect for Cochran’s rights to freedom of religion and freedom of speech.

Cochran got into trouble over a book he wrote on his own time for a small group that he led in his church. The book entitled “Who Told You That You Were Naked?,” was directed at Christian men seeking to fulfill their biblical roles as “husbands, fathers, community and business leaders.”

Six of the book’s 162 pages—yes, that’s 3.7 percent—addressed a biblical perspective on sexuality. As David French summed up, Cochran took “the completely conventional, orthodox Christian position that sex outside of male–female marriage is contrary to God’s will,” which “is the position of the Catholic Church and every orthodox Protestant denomination in the United States.”

Unfortunately, “orthodoxy” is defined very differently at Atlanta’s City Hall. When the contents of Cochran’s book came to the attention of Mayor Kasim Reed, Reed ultimately fired Cochran, but not before saying “when you’re a city employee, and [your] thoughts, beliefs, and opinions are different from the city’s, you have to check them at the door.”

That makes it sound like Cochran was fired for his beliefs; but the city denied that. Instead it claimed that he was let go because he didn’t obtain permission before publishing the book.

The problem is that, constitutionally-speaking, the city cannot require employees to get permission before expressing their religious views.

Late last month, a federal court agreed. It concluded that the Atlanta pre-clearance policy “does not pass constitutional muster” because it does not “set out objective standards for the supervisor to employ.”

As a result, the opinion continues, it “would prevent an employee from writing and selling a book on golf or badminton on his own time and, without prior approval, would subject him to firing. It’s unclear to the Court how such an outside employment would ever affect the City’s ability to function, and the City provides no evidence to justify it … The potential for stifled speech far outweighs an unsupported assertion of harm.”

Unfortunately for Cochran, that glass is only half-full. The court rejected Cochran’s claim that his rights to free speech and freedom of religion were violated by his firing.

Still, as Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Kevin Theriot emphasizes, the court ruled that Cochran’s firing was unconstitutional. According to Theriot, who represented Cochran, the ruling “sets a precedent that says that government employers have to be very careful about how they restrict the speech of their employees when they’re talking about non-work related stuff.”

This is a real concern. Rules like Atlanta’s have had a chilling effect on the free speech of people on platforms such as social media. People have legitimately feared the consequences of speaking up for traditional Christian beliefs even on their own time. This ruling is an important step in the direction of eliminating that chill.

Where does that leave Cochran himself? Despite media reports to the contrary, he’s in a position to recover his lost wages and benefits. There’s even a remote possibility he could get his job back.

In a just and sane world Kelvin Cochran would not have had to endure what he has endured. But I’m grateful for his courage and I pray that he’ll receive some compensation for the wrong done to him.


Fox News’ Tucker Carlson called out Democrat Congressman Keith Ellison for his long history of hate

Ellison is a black Muslim

Ellison “has a long history of saying repugnant things and backing extremist causes,” The Daily Caller co-founder stated. “Back in 1989, Ellison wrote that the Constitution existed only for white people. He referred to it as ‘their’ Constitution, calling it ‘the best evidence of a white racist conspiracy to subjugate other peoples.’ That’s the Constitution of the United States.”

“Ellison has spoken favorably, meanwhile, of cop killer Assata Shakur. He said he was ‘praying’ that Fidel Castro’s communist regime in Cuba would not be forced to extradite her back to the United States,” Carlson continued. “As a law student at the University of Minnesota, Ellison wrote a column calling for the creation of a separate black ethnostate. This is the man that is now second in command of the entire Democratic party. Now that ought to bother Republicans and Independents.”

“It should terrify Democrats. Most voters don’t support cop killing, racial separatism, political violence, abolishing freedom of speech, and they tend to flee from politicians and parties that do support those things,” he added. (RELATED: Keith Ellison Poses With Antifa Handbook)



Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here


1 comment:

ScienceABC123 said...

How can a Congressman take an oath to the Constitution and then claim the Constitution doesn't apply to him? Oh, that's right he's a Muslim and they're taught they can lie to non-Muslims.