Chelsea is a small town with a bit of a multiple personality disorder due to its rural location not far from the Evil Empire of Social Justice Warriors, also known as Ann Arbor. Continue reading
I have wanted to comment on women having to register for the draft for a while, and now I am finally getting around to it. On this matter, all I can say is: thank you, feminists!
In years of railing on the internet against feminism, against modernism, against materialism, and in favor of a traditional kin-based patriarchal social structure, I have accomplished only a little, mainly changing the minds of a handful of people who may have been readers of one of my previous two blogs. But feminists, in their inability to consider any long-term consequences of their political agenda, have accomplished what I could not; they have assured an almost immediate return to marriage and natalism in the event of a war requiring conscription.
Thanks to the tireless efforts of feminists, men will be in a position to call all the shots if there is ever a draft for a war; every young woman will suddenly realize that she has an immediate desire to become pregnant as soon as possible because the alternative is the risk of getting killed in battle or taken prisoner by an enemy that has not had the, er, benefit of HR’s sexual harassment training. There is zero possibility that our current economic set-up of subsidizing single motherhood will be sustainable if suddenly the majority of 18-29 year-old women decide to become pregnant at the same time; the sheer weight of that economic burden would collapse the system.
Most women know that they are utterly unsuited for fighting in a war (as opposed to serving as nurses or the like) and would only be in the way, endangering the lives of the other soldiers. Women aren’t stupid and have a higher sense of self-preservation that you might suspect by looking at feminist talking heads.
But really, can you even imagine someone like Lena Dunham, Anita Sarkeesian, or Lindy West fighting in a war? Regardless of what they may say, it is not now nor has it ever been one of feminism’s goals to establish actual parity of responsibility between men and women. Were there to be a war with a female draft requirement, young women would instantly know whom to blame for this—feminism, which would be revealed as the anti-family, female-supremacist failure that it really is. And young women would also quite clearly see where safety lies – in marriage and motherhood.
Which is what I have been saying for years now.
So now I say:
Thank you feminists, for achieving what I could not: our assured eventual return to a kin-based patriarchal social structure which is the source of safety and well-being for women and children. You have my deepest gratitude.
Great job, feminists!
Last week in Our Best Days Are Behind Us, Patrice Lewis (whom I generally admire) wrote:
Individual liberty corrected many of our nation’s wrongs over the subsequent century.
So here’s a question – what changed? Why should America’s best days be behind it?
…Today we’ve reversed our good-to-bad ratio. Many of the things that were very bad (slavery, etc.) have been corrected. Many of the things that were very good are being crushed.
Belief in, and reliance upon, God has dropped precipitously. Government interference in our personal lives is high. Morals and responsibility are low. Illegitimacy has skyrocketed. Men make babies and walk away. Women have turned to government handouts to support those babies, or have government-funded abortions to kill them. Thrift and self-sufficiency are distant memories. Handouts are now multi-generational legacies.
The trouble is that progressives have taken over. They’ve gone far beyond the notion of correcting legitimate grievances to the creation of a fake “utopia” based on goals that can only be achieved through coercive force […] Our nation will continue its decline unless its people recapture the qualities our Founding Fathers envisioned: minimal government, a balanced budget, maximum personal responsibility, thrift, strong families, hard work and an unshakeable faith in God.
I suppose this is all cyclical. After all, the famous quote attributed (probably incorrectly) to Alexander Fraser Tytler remains eerily prescient for America:
A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.
I admire Mrs. Lewis’ homesteading skills and enjoy her social commentary, and she comes so close to getting it, understanding that liberalism is the crux of the problem, but then she just couldn’t connect the dots that the Founding Fathers were the original American liberals. I think of this blind faith as Founding Father Worship.
The disconnect is so odd because it’s like saying, “Hey this democracy train is actually heading straight for Tyranny-ville and I’ve got the Tytler Train Schedule right here telling me that’s where this train is bound for, but if we can just somehow throw the democracy train in reverse for a spell, surely we will somehow get to some other destination instead, as opposed to just taking longer to getting to Tyranny-ville!”
Trying to back up the democracy train, which is what the most conservativey conservatives want (as opposed to plain ole’ conservatives who just want to slow it down a little), is kind of like the Ferris Beuller kids trying to turn back the odometer on Dad’s Ferrari by setting its wheels up on blocks, throwing it into reverse, and putting a brick on the accelerator:
Which, as you know, worked oh so well:
Odometers by their nature go forward. It’s what they do.
But people just can’t seem to let go of the idea that democracy itself would be an awesome form of government if only it didn’t keep doing what democracies by their very nature must always do – collapse into tyranny.
But point out that there are other forms of government – such as monarchy, for instance -and even the most conservative folks look at you with bafflement and even horror:
“B-but what if the king is a tyrant?!”
I came out of the closet as a non-voter to my family-in-law this summer. It was upsetting for all of us. Especially difficult was when they asked why. How to explain the evolution – no, rather, the clarifying – of my understanding about democracy in dinner table conversation? See, Mom, it’s just that I have come to understand the Founding Fathers as the liberals they were. Well, and what is wrong with liberalism, they would like to know. The more one tries to talk and explain this kind of thing to a baffled audience, the more one realizes that other picnic-goers view you as perhaps being a sandwich or two short…
Well, they would like to know, if I don’t like liberals, why don’t I just vote Republican? Because, you know, Republicans are conservatives, so even though you may embarrass your family by being a conservative, at least it is a thing which they can understand. As opposed to just not voting at all which is frankly…suspicious.
My dilemma is really kind of solved now, though, for whenever my back is up against the wall and I am forced to confess my dogged refusal to vote even for conseratives, I shall simply say:
…the function of conservatism in society is to preserve and protect liberalism from its own excesses. Conservatives are the abused enablers of progressives and always will be, mopping up the vomit and excrement after the drunken binges to make sure that they can continue.
And I think that will nicely end any further dinner table queries about my political preferences. Don’t you?
That moment when I realize I am far less sexist than feminists…
If I had a nickel for every time I was taken to task by some internet feminist for being allegedly sexist back when I used to run my anti-feminism blog, I would be writing this post from my Northern Michigan hunting preserve with luxury cabins and on-site deer processing facility. But it turns out, feminists are the real sexists:
In Karen Keller’s kindergarten classroom, boys can’t play with Legos.
They can have their pick of Tinkertoys and marble tracks, but the colorful bricks are “girls only.”
“I always tell the boys, ‘You’re going to have a turn’ — and I’m like, ‘Yeah, when hell freezes over’ in my head,” she said. “I tell them, ‘You’ll have a turn’ because I don’t want them to feel bad.”
Although her approach might anger some parents, Keller is sticking to her guns: It’s all part of a plan to get girls building during “free choice,” the 40 minutes of unstructured play time embedded at the end of every school day.
Huh. Sex-segregated play? Tell me the one about gender being just a social construct, feminists.
I know I said I wasn’t going to write about the idiocy of feminism much anymore, but this story hit close to home. As you may know, I am a speech-language pathologist. I have worked in private practice and out-patient med rehab, but currently I work in a public school. It’s a nice school. The teachers are good, it’s a semi-rural setting, the kids are progressing well…no OMG aren’t the public schools so awful! stories to share about the building I work in. The Kindergarten teachers there, who are not to my knowledge sexist feminists, all have tubs of Legos in their rooms for the children to use during choice time, and I have never ever seen them restrict use to one sex or the other.
As readers of my old blog may recall, I am a huge proponent of using Legos or other such bricks during therapy. A typical therapy session for me is as follows:
I go to pick up Bobby (not his name) from Mrs. Smith’s (not her name) Kindergarten room. He is building with Legos but doesn’t mind stopping to come to the speech room to work on his /s/ sound. We sit at the table and I open up my large totebag filled with ziploc bags. In the bags are various small sets of Legos, including the Friend Legos that are marketed toward girls, with their instruction booklets. There are also large ziploc bags full of Snap-N-Style dolls. He may choose any of these items. Bobby always chooses the Legos, and he never chooses the Friend Legos. Girls almost always choose the dolls or sometimes the Friend Legos. Hey folks, I don’t make the biological sex roles! But neither do I fight against them…
“Bobby, let’s go through your words now. For /s/, keep your teeth together, put your tongue on the ‘T’ spot, and blow. Ready? Repeat after me.”
After 5 words, Bobby gets the blocks he needs to complete step 1. He then uses the words in sentences and gets the blocks for step 2. He continues working dilligently on his speech work with pauses to build. At the end of the session, he has built this:
“Great job on your speech sounds, Bobby. You may have 2 minutes to play with what you built.”
“Can we make a video?” he asks.
Yes, I say, smiling to myself because Bobby doesn’t know that making Lego videos is my trick for getting him to practice narrative language skills. Bobby proceeds to narrate a brief story about a bad thief and a good cop while I record it with my school iPad. While he watches the video happily, I tell him to check to make sure his story has a beginning, a middle, and an end. He says it does. He gets his sticker (he can choose from a wide variety of stickers but almost always chooses a super hero sticker – hey folks, I don’t make the biological sex roles). He leaves.
Bobby returns to class happy and sits down for read-to-self time. When Suzy (not her name) comes to speech, she gets to choose from the same totebag. She almost always chooses the Snap-N-Style dolls, which stimulate her spatial reasoning skills and develop her fine motor abilities just like Legos do. Her narrative video shows a girl doll feeding the Snap-N-Style puppy and brushing its fancy fur.
Oh, curse you, you persistent biological sex roles!
Naturally Bobby and Suzy are free to choose to play with whatever they find in the totebag. Boys who play with dolls and girls who build motorcycle cops are A-okay by me; my therapy goals for them will be achieved either way.
In other words, I don’t have to be sexist like feminists are to use Legos at school.
Now, let us contemplate the school district’s response to noted sexist Kindergarten teacher Karen Keller:
“Following the release of a recent news article, the Bainbridge Island School District (BISD) has received inquiries that reflect inaccurate perceptions about student access to Legos in Karen Keller’s kindergarten classroom at Blakely Elementary School,” wrote district spokeswoman Galen Crawford.
“In keeping with a science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) education grant, Ms. Keller gave girls a designated time to play with the building toys during a 30-minute ‘free-choice’ time block in September 2015. This isolated, short-term practice ended in October. All students in all classrooms have and will continue to have access to all instructional and noninstructional materials.”
Hey Bainbridge Island School District administrators, here is a protip from me: if you refuse to call out isolated incidents of terrible and probably illegal behavior by one of your teachers, you feed the fire of public perception of our schools being evil dens of ultra left-wing idealogues who want to brainwash and indoctrinate little children to their personal political agenda by all means possible, including using discriminatory classroom practices. Those of us who are down here in the trenches know that most teachers aren’t like that, so why do you throw them under the bus by defending bad apples like Karen Keller? It’s hardly a mystery why homeschooling is increasing by seven to fifteen percent per year when certain school administrators won’t police their own.
Luckily for me, this kind of crap would never fly in the district I work in. I wouldn’t work there if it did since speech therapists are highly in demand and I could choose to work in a variety of schools, therapy clinics, hospitals, or skilled nursing facilities instead. I will never silently acquiesce to sexual discrimination against boys no matter where I work.
But let’s end on a positive note, shall we? Let’s talk about why I use Legos in my therapy plans so often. It isn’t solely because Legos are fun and children love them. There is actually a plethora of research that demonstrates the cognitive, fine motor, linguistic, social and academic benefits of playing with bricks such as Legos. I use them as reinforcers for speech sound articulation therapy, for building narrative language skills, and for improving social pragmatic language skills for children on the autism spectrum. I’ve used them with kids who stutter to practice fluency techniques. I’m even considering starting a second blog on which I post all my therapy lesson plans involving Legos or other building blocks since I’ve seen so much improvement in the children with whom I use them.
For those who are interested, here are a handful of studies, but there are many more:
- Caldera YM, Culp AM, O’Brien M, Truglio RT, Alvarez M, and Huston AC. 1999. Children’s Play Preferences, Construction Play with Blocks, and Visual-spatial Skills: Are they Related? International Journal of Behavioral Development; 23 (4): 855-872.
- Casey BM, Andrews N, Schindler H, Kersh JE, Samper A and Copley J. 2008. The development of spatial skills through interventions involving block building activities. Cognition and Instruction (26): 269-309.
- Christakis DA, Zimmerman FJ, and Garrison MM. 2007. Effect of block play on language acquisition and attention in toddlers: a pilot randomized controlled trial. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 161(10):967-71.
- Heisner J. 2005. Telling Stories with Blocks: Encouraging Language in the Block Center Early Childhood Research and Practice 7(2).
- Ferrara K, Hirsch-Pasek K, Newcombe NS, Golinkoff RM and Shallcross Lam W. 2011. Block talk: Spatial language during block play. Mind, Brain, and Education (5): 143-151.
- Kamii C, Miyakawa Y and Kato Y. 2004. The development of logico-mathematical knowledge in a block-building activity at ages 1-4. Journal of Research in Childhood19: 44-57.
- Keen R. 2011. The development of problem solving in young children: a critical cognitive skill. Annu Rev Psychol.62:1-21.
- Legoff DB and Sherman M. 2006. Long-term outcome of social skills intervention based on interactive LEGO play. Autism. 10(4):317-29.
- Oostermeijer M, Boonen JH and Jolles J. 2014. The relation between children’s constructive play activities, spatial ability, and mathematical word problem-soving performance: a mediation analysis in sixth-grade students. Frontiers in Psychology 5 Article 782.
- Pepler DJ and Ross HS. 1981. The effects of play on convergent and divergent problem solving. Child Development 52(4): 1202-1210.
- Richardson M, Hunt TE, and Richardson C. 2014. Children’s construction task performance and spatial ability: Controlling task complexity and predicting mathematics performance. Percept Mot Skills. 2014 Nov 11. [Epub ahead of print]
- Roseth CJ, Johnson DW, and Johnson RT. 2008. Promoting Early Adolescents’ Achievement and Peer Relationships: the Effects of Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Goal Structures. Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 134, No. 2: 223-246.
- Sprafkin C, Serbin LA, Denier C and Connor JM. 1983. Sex-differentiated play: Cognitive consequences and early interventions. In MB Liss (ed), Social and cognitive skills: Sex roles and child’s play. New York: Academic Press.
- Stiles J and Stern C. 2009. Developmental change in young children’s spatial cognitive processing: Complexity effects and block construction performance in preschool children. Journal of Cognition and Development (2): 157-187.
- Verdine BN, Golinkoff RM, Hirsh-Pasek K, Newcombe NS, Filipowicz AT, Chang A. 2013. Deconstructing Building Blocks: Preschoolers’ Spatial Assembly Performance Relates to Early Mathematical Skills. Child Dev. 2013 Sep 23. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12165. [Epub ahead of print]
- Wolfgang CH, Stannard LL, and Jones I. 2003. Advanced constructional play with LEGOs among preschoolers as a predictor of later school achievement in mathematics. Early Child Development and Care 173(5): 467-475.
- Wolfgang, Charles H.; Stannard, Laura L.; & Jones, Ithel. 2001. Block play performance among preschoolers as a predictor of later school achievement in mathematics. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 15(2), 173-180.
As I was pondering the videos released by the Center for Medical Progress showing Planned Parenthood doctors carving up aborted babies in order to sell their organs, and executives haggling over the price like old ladies in an open-air market haggling over the price of dill weed, I recalled that a few years ago, philosophers Alberto Giubilini and Francesca Minerva published an article in the Journal of Medical Ethics proposing that infanticide be called post-birth abortion instead and purporting to prove that there is no moral problem with the practice because infants, like fetuses, are non-persons:
[W]hen circumstances occur after birth such that they would have justified abortion, what we call after-birth abortion should be permissible. … [W]e propose to call this practice ‘after-birth abortion’, rather than ‘infanticide,’ to emphasize that the moral status of the individual killed is comparable with that of a fetus … rather than to that of a child. Therefore, we claim that killing a newborn could be ethically permissible in all the circumstances where abortion would be. Such circumstances include cases where the newborn has the potential to have an (at least) acceptable life, but the well-being of the family is at risk.
This was quickly accepted by much of liberal society, which isn’t surprising given that child euthanasia is already legal in some European countries, most notably without any age limit in Belgium. By treating the killing of human life as sometimes acceptable and the “products of conception” (embryos, fetuses/babies) as a for-profit commodity, we have accelerated our descent down a slippery slope to utter depravity.
- IVF technology is widely available
- surrogacy is increasingly socially accepted and continues to grow as a for-profit business in poor countries such as India
- the organs and other body parts of aborted babies are acceptable to sell,
- post-birth abortion (infanticide) is ethical,
- and human cloning becomes possible (which it probably will within our lifetimes),
- it will be considered ethical to pay poor women to be a sort of “body parts” farm for the wealthy.
The market for this will eventually be huge. A wealthy person will simply pay a poor woman in India to carry and deliver an infant, perhaps conceived via IVF or perhaps a clone if the technology has advanced that far (as it soon will); the baby will then be murdered and have whatever organ or tissue the wealthy person needs or wants “harvested” for use.
At first it will be couched in terms of medical need – This man will die without a new kidney! How can you be against saving his life? – and eventually it will be considered acceptable for any purpose – Why isn’t it ethical to grow new sex organs for use by a person who is “transitioning” to the opposite sex? Why shouldn’t that celebrity grow herself a new face full of baby-smooth skin?
Given what modern liberals have already stipulated as being morally acceptable, the only impediment to the above scenario is technological.