Category Archives: Feminism

Reason 346: Because Words Mean Things

I’ve spoken here before of what I call the “confederacy of evil”. That simply means that the butchers at Planned Parenthood are no different than the democrat party, and that the democrat party is no different than the LGBT, and that the LGBT is no different than the NEA, and so on. They’re all one. They’re a confederacy of evil. They are the education institution.

And since the democrat party is in complete control of the schoolhouse, you can bet that the so-called historical aspect of the first woman president has been beaten into their heads ad-nauseam. But it is a self-contradicting message that your children are hearing because words mean things.

School District Says Children Shouldn’t Be Called Boys or Girls

You can read the article if you like, but the title says it all. Boy doesn’t mean boy and girl doesn’t mean girl, unless they say it does… I guess.

Does it take a critical thinker to see the self-contradiction? Can the confederacy of evil have it any old way they want? The answer, why yes they can, because they have indoctrinated millions to be unthinking and uncritical. Does no one see that if boy and girl are meaningless, then so is the first “woman” president.

This is not healthy. In fact, it’s sick. And it will make its way into your child’s mind, and in your child’s mind, you will have helped put it there because you are affirming what is taught in school simply because you send your child there to be taught. But there is a better way to raise your children. First, keep them far far away from the confederacy of evil.


Filed under Feminism, Homosexual agenda

Reason 341: Because The Schoolhouse Is The Nanny In The State, And She Will Destroy Your Sons

Boys are in trouble. If your son is like many, perhaps even most sons, he’ll Peter-Pan it until he’s well into his thirties; sitting in the basement playing video games and checking out porn sites. The schoolhouse will do everything in its power to turn him into a feminine, castrated little man who sees himself as a victim of whatever evil there is out there that he’s most prone to be afraid of. In short, the schoolhouse will become the boy’s nanny, and train him to serve the nanny state, and to depend on his husband, the state, to care for and protect him, and to provide him will millions of regulations so that he can never do anything that would hurt himself.

Here we have an article by Jim Daly that’s not about school, per se.  It’s about boys. Let it reintroduce you to the increasingly foreign concepts of risk, danger, and manhood.

The Danger of Over-Protecting Boys

It’s dangerous for your boys. In adolescence, they’ll be confronted with the risk of pornography or face the danger of unhealthy relationships. They’ll need the courage and strength to resist those temptations.

It’s dangerous for the culture as well. The Lord calls good men to risk by going into places like Thailand or Amsterdam and rescuing women from sex trafficking … or by standing with courage in the public square and kicking down walls of untruth … or by going into the world and being a light for Christ.

The bumps and scrapes boys get by risking early in life prepare them for the world they’ll face when they’re older. The church won’t survive without good men in leadership who will risk. And the culture won’t survive if good men are afraid to risk and speak the truth.

As the article states, we need boys to become men. The nanny-state schoolhouse will do everything in its power to prevent that. Real men are difficult to enslave, and the state sees that as a negative, but for you, it will be a positive.

I’ve also written  here  in an economics blog that speaks of the same thing.

…and also here in another blog.

Leave a comment

Filed under Feminism

Reason 323: Because There’s Lots Of People Who Can Get A Teacher’s Certificate, But Only One Who Can Be Your Child’s Mom

Mom’s do the lion’s share of the work of homeschooling because Dad’s normally, at least in the usual homeschooling family, the provider. And yes, many people do without because of the loss of the second income, myself included. But I’ve honestly never given it a second thought. John says in his first letter that worldly things, the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes and the pride of life, do not come from the father but are worldly. New cars are great. More sheetrock is awesome. Nice things to look at are tops. But none of it is worth sacrificing a child for.

Here is an article from Dr. Laura about stay at home moms that I thought fits the bill for this blog. The title, which is a pull-quote, is what caught my attention:

The Top Reasons Women Give for Becoming Stay-at-Home Moms

From the article:

5. They feel guilty. I use the word “guilt” because more often than not, women call me to discuss guilt over not bringing in money rather than the guilt of not being sweet and adorable to their husbands or hands on with their children. They realize that 5,000 other people could do their job, but only they can be their husband’s wife and kid’s mom.

Public school has done much more than dumbed down our children, it has also played a part in rendering women idle, and that never goes well. It’s interesting that Dr. Laura gets more calls from women who feel guilty about the money they’re not bringing in, and that’s no wonder. The state is taking care of their children during the day. What’s she going to do? Clean toilets?  Oh but there’s so much more!

There’s something about taking your child, or your ten children, into a restaurant and have the waiter comment on how unusual it is for your child to behave like a grown up and not an out-of-control banshee, or a teller shocked that a child answers a question from a parent with honor using “sir”. But better than that is to watch your child learn new things, and then apply them. I’ll take that over the extra sheetrock any day of the week. And I can tell you, Mom isn’t sitting around feeling worthless either.


Leave a comment

Filed under Feminism

Reason 319: Because The Schoolhouse Has Declared War On Boys

I’ve lived this twice. Once when I was a boy, and again because I have a son. There are two realities. There is the fantasy-land of liberal thought, which I’ll call the alternate reality. And then there’s the reality that liberal reality refuses to admit exists, which is the real reality. In the alternate reality there’s no difference between boys and girls. But in the real reality, they are very different. But since the institution rejects reality and chooses instead to live in a fantasy land of its own making, boys are crammed into a girl sized mold in the schoolhouse.

In the home boys are much more free to be boys and will thrive there. I can’t imagine the carnage to my son’s psyche if I had allowed the institution to cram him into the institution’s feminist mold. But then again, perhaps I can, because I”m still recovering from it myself.

Today we have a great video from Prager University that explains this very well:

Of course this, like most critiques, even from great conservatives like Prager, focus on changing the schoolhouse, and not on rescuing children from it. In that way we might even admit that conservatives have their own fantasy land, which is that they’re ever going to fix the public school. War machines protect their tank factories because they need tanks to wage war. Likewise, evil is going to protect its human clone factories, because, without them, they know that it’s over. Your children, and especially your son, will rot there as you wait for the institution to change. Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for changing the institution. But it would be an awful, horrible mistake to attempt to fix it while it in the mean time crushes your child. But rescuing your child from the burning building takes precedence over putting the fire out.

1 Comment

Filed under Feminism

Reason 242: Because Envy Is The Root Of Much Stupidity

“Equality” carved from the emotion, envy, is the best idol to exalt over the masses if you want to control, manipulate and eventually enslave them. It’s great because it’s impossible to define and so therefore it’s impossible to achieve.  It can mean what any one person wants it to mean and in a vague sense it means what everyone feels like it means. And we all know that everyone has one reason or another to feel worse off than any other given person. So envy is effective because it’s not a thoughtful concept but an emotional one. Whether Marx knew that or not I don’t know. He perhaps was so overcome by envy that he himself had no clue.

But here we are, living in a society ripe for such a futile cause. We were made ripe by the established religion of our land, Secular Humanism, which teaches that each individual is self-oriented. That is to say that it has been trained in mass to look inward, not outward, for a reference point, and in doing so, thinking has become the defeated enemy of emotion. It’s much easier to join some futile cause due to feelings than to think the cause through; to examine the complex and myriad reasons things are how they are, and to examine one’s own contribution to the same. It’s much easier to look around and feel bad that a poor mother who can’t afford to feed the baby in her womb, and so support murdering that child than it is to see reality in light of the higher order that exists all around.  Sex is a procreative act. It has purpose beyond pleasure. And murder is not the solution for mitigating that purpose. Marriage and family IS.

But marriage and family are opposite of equality. It is a unit with an unequal partnership. That’s the reality, and try as man might, he will never undo it. He will only succeed in undoing himself, like the man who jumps off a cliff to prove that the inequality of the bird’s ability to fly is unfair.

All of this to set the stage for my article today:

School cancels Father-Daughter Dance — not ‘inclusive’ enough

Of course it’s exclusive. Not everyone can be a father and a daughter. It excludes mothers and sons. The average person is thoughtful enough to understand this, though he will also understand the complaint, and many times will fall prey to the complaint because he’s been programmed to be emotional and not thoughtful. so let’s look at this:

  1. I’m confident that a mother-son dance would not raise any ire even though it would necessarily require exclusivity. Why? Envy and equality. In the article it is pointed out that anyone can come. But that’s not enough. It has “fathers” in it, and “fathers” is an oppressive concept.
  2. Inclusivity, like the cloth it’s cut from, equality, is impossible and vague which means it can be manipulated to control the thoughtless masses. It’s an Orwellian concept which means we can exclude those who think differently about how we feel about including everyone.

Everyone needs a father. Anything that bolsters fatherhood in this fatherless generation is a good thing; which is why it’s hated. But you don’t have to subject your family to this insanity. You can keep your children home and teach them objective reality. If you do that, they will be a part of the rebuilding, and not part of the collapse.

1 Comment

Filed under Feminism

Reason 111: Because Casting Off Tradition Is Not Education

There’s an old saying, “No matter where you go, there  you are.” And we can tailor this to the education institution’s insanity too. “No matter what tradition you cast off, there will be a tradition that needs to be cast off”. So here we have an elitist product of the institution doing exactly what the elitist institution has taught her to do.

From Breitbart:

A report states that Eujin Jaela Kim, a public school principal in Brooklyn, has banned virtually all celebrations that run afoul of far-left political correctness.

From the New York Post:

Santa Claus is banned. The Pledge of Allegiance is no longer recited. “Harvest festival” has replaced Thanksgiving, and “winter celebrations” substitute for Christmas parties.

So your child can’t be taught to pledge allegiances, because allegiances are based on nationalism, and nationalism leads to war.

And your child can’t be taught gratitude, because gratitude suggests there is one to which we owe gratitude who is above the state. Can’t have that!

And your child can’t be taught about Christmas, because Christmas points to a Savior, and a Savior suggests the need for salvation, and the need for salvation suggests that man is not basically good. Can’t have that!!

If there’s a tradition, no matter how old or engrained in the human psyche, they’re going to try to cast it off. It will go on and on because what they really hate is what is in their own hearts. Little do they know that the children they teach will eventually cast off the tradition of casting off tradition, and will probably settle on a religion that is willing to die for the very cause of America hating, Jesus hating, Jew hating that the institution was too cowardly to admit existed in their hearts in the first place.

This is foolery of course. People are going to be people, and the institution is not going to train people to not be people. The only question that remains is what WILL they succeed in training children to be? It’s all a grand experiment, and only time will tell. But just remember that your child is precious, and you don’t have to send him to the social laboratory to be experimented on by moronic elitists who think themselves wiser than they ought.


Filed under Christianity, Family, Feminism, History, Indoctrination, Islam, Moral Relativism, Nationalism, Pluralism, Political Correctness, Worldview

Reason 65: Because Education Is More Than Just Teaching Facts, It’s Teaching Values Also

Matt Walsh has a written an excellent column titled:

Parents, Teach Your Kids To Be Virtuous. The Schools Can’t Do It For You.

He addresses the violence in schools, its racial component and the institution’s  view of the hierarchical value of some of those students over others in the system.  He explains it like this:

…there is a hierarchy of Approved Victim Groups. Blacks are above teachers and women, but below gays and transgenders. Naturally, white men, white conservative women, and Christians are all at the bottom of the pyramid. Liberals don’t mind bullying and victimization so long as the hierarchy is respected. In other words, bullying must always be directed downwards, from the superior victim group to the inferior. That means a homosexual cross dressing fetishist who calls himself “transgender” may sexually harass underage girls by walking into their bathroom or locker room, and liberals will applaud. But if a straight man so much as looks at a woman sideways, or compliments her in a matter that makes her feel uncomfortable, liberals will say she’s been raped. Do you see how this works? Victimization must be ordered properly according to the liberal Victim Hierarchy. The highest victims can be victimized by no one, the lowest by everyone, and the ones in between only by those above them. It’s a very confusing system that requires years of study and many lost brain cells to understand.

Of course, the institutions values are fluid, if they exist at all. How can a person, or an institution, in one year promote and then celebrate a homophobic bigot named Barack Obama for president, and then before his first term is even up call all those who say the same thing evil because…, well, they’re homophobic bigots?  And of course its suddenly ok that Obama said it, even before he evolved himself, because he’s a liar anyway… which is ok I guess because he is after all, Barack Obama. Such are the values in the fluid and mixed up institution that you should vacate yesterday.

So with this, perhaps  you ought not be surprised if the school house is a little violent… and a little confusing. But I have a suggestion for you, a better way. Rescue your child from this hell and teach him yourself. It’s probably the only hell you’ll ever be able to rescue him from, and he’ll thank you for it some day, and it will all be worth it.


Leave a comment

Filed under Abuse, Feminism, Unions, Violence

Reason 64: Because Who World Want Sanctimonious Elites Programing Their Child’s Mind Anyway?

We think in words. So if we want to change the way someone thinks we do it with words. We can either change the meanings of words, or a sense of evil can be implanted by banishing words. But it’s never about the words. It’s about programming thoughts. Orwell understood this well as he explained the concept of “newspeak”  in his novel 1984.

So here we have an article from The Telegraph informing us of new evils… sorry, words that will not be tolerated in the British schoolhouse. I don’t know, but I tend to see these things as more heinous when they’re perpetrated on the youngest, most innocent and impressionable among us. From the article:

Children as young as five are going to be admonished for using language that enforces gender stereotypes as new guidelines are sent to every school in England this Tuesday.

Okay, so I’m guessing that “Allah Akbar” won’t be among the evil words.  And I’m going to venture a guess here that the word “British” will eventually find its way into evil territory, if it hasn’t already.

What we have is a nation in the midst of committing suicide which seems to be obsessed with straining gnats and play pretend. I’m guessing that they really believe that if they pretend that there are no differences between genders it will become true. Fortunately for some, these classes are filled with children.  And if I remember right it was a child that looked at the naked emperor and stated the obvious. Those kids. They say the darndest things.

A look at the banned words is an interesting study in its own right:

  • “Man up” to people who are acting “a bit wet”

  • Calling boys “sissies”

  • Calling children or each other “cupcake”

  • Boys telling girls to “make them a sandwich”

  • Teachers saying to boys “don’t be a girl”.

  • Calling girls who study ‘male’ subjects “lesbians”

I guess teaching compassion and respect for fellow human beings is a little too passe.  Besides, compassion for anyone unwilling to bow to the state’s decree that man’s entire history has been misogynistic,  homophobic and bigoted–until it came along to set everything aright–is not to be exercised anyway.

So yes, this is not America. But if this sort of folly hasn’t found its way into an American classroom, it will. You can be certain of that much. And you can also be certain that your child will fair much better in a real school, where teaching it taken seriously, like the school that would take place if you taught them yourself. You are probably not a rich elite, and so your child will probably not be able to have a happy play pretend life living off your trust fund in a play pretend world. No, she will have to live in the real world where reality has a pesky way of asserting itself in painful ways.

H/T Glenn Chatfield

More from National Review

Leave a comment

Filed under Feminism, Indoctrination, Transgender

Reason 53: Because No One, Including Your Child, Has To Live In A Dystopian Existence

Here is a wonderful video that has nothing to do with school… on the surface.  It does however speak of indoctrination and the state. It is a 10 minute documentary that describes the Dystopia that sex crazed elitist are pointing your children toward, and are preparing their minds to embrace. Only the elitists seem to think this is Utopia.  I guess that’s why they’re all so wonderfully blissful all the time living in their beach houses and copulating with whomever and whatever. It compares two worlds, theirs and sensibility. Think twice before you have your child programmed to self-destruct.

Leave a comment

Filed under Feminism