The problem of cowering to and enabling SJW's

Post Reply New Topic

Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand set herself up for a wave of backlash after a ridiculous claim that the future is “female” and “intersectional.”

The New York Democrat wore her progressive cap in a tweet rife with identity politics on Tuesday, and quickly got torched by those on both sides of the political aisle, including President Donald Trump’s son.

“Our future is: Female, Intersectional, Powered by our belief in one another. And we’re just getting started,” Gillibrand tweeted.

Our future is:

Female
Intersectional
Powered by our belief in one another.

And we’re just getting started.

— Kirsten Gillibrand (@SenGillibrand) December 5, 2018

The potential 2020 Democratic presidential candidate was immediately slammed for her apparent pandering.

The woman once known as a centrist Democrat with moderate views on immigration and guns appears to be swinging to an extreme in order to reach some voters.

Nate Silver, writer and FiveThirtyEight founder, assessed Gillibrand’s tweet and her attempt to “position” herself.

I don’t get how Gillibrand is trying to position herself. The type of people who respond positively to the term “intersectionality” are the type of people who will think she’s a neo-liberal establishment shill and have 4 or 5 other candidates they like better. https://t.co/H0kA0ODKcQ

— Nate Silver (@NateSilver538) December 5, 2018

The future is intersectional? Intersectionality is about the intersection of different forms of oppression. It's like the senator was saying the future is be being oppressed. That's not a good goal for the future. I'm glad the senator was called out for this dog-whistle.

What my Senator did is what I see a lot of middle age people do is awkwardly try to be young and hip. It is equivalent to constantly name checking current music acts and wearing the same fashions as teenagers. The only people that they fool is themselves. What she was trying to say was the future is going to be more diverse but used “intersectionality” and a tone that signaled misandry to pander. She got called out because the attempt was so ackwardly obvoius. I would not take any comfort in her seemingly failed attempt, some SJW ish type of candidate who is more competent at it may very well win a parties nomination or the the Presidency if not in 2020 some time later. They all said a nationalist/populist/authoritrian candidate could not win but what it took was the right candidate at the right time.

I'm starting to realize my mom is a Social Justice Warrior. She's the one who tried to tell me that women can't be sexist and that anybody who isn't white can't be racist.

Instead of black and white thinking, let's call it African American and Caucasian thinking. So PC and no longer racist.

I was told what a racist s**t head it is when I said I am fine with people wanting to date their own race because they want to keep their race going. I mean what is wrong with wanting to keep your natural race than having it fade out. It has nothing to do with 1930's Germany and Eugenics and segregation. No one is telling them who they can or can't date, this is a choice they are making on their own.

Absolutely!

How can a relationship exist or even begin without honesty?

Not just about gender or sexual preference, but about being who you (we) really are in every way that matters.

Telling the truth when asked.

If you are a psychologist concerned about the health and well-being of boys and men, there are many matters to which you might turn your attention: In the United States, these would include drug use, high suicide rates, educational achievement rates that lag far behind those of women, and shortened life expectancy, to name just a few. But if you examined the recently issued American Psychological Association guidelines for practitioners who treat boys and men, you would think the main challenge facing men today is masculinity itself.

Masculinity, according to the report, is a “particular constellation of standards that have held sway over large segments of the population, including: anti-femininity, achievement, eschewal of the appearance of weakness, and adventure, risk, and violence.” In a summary of the study on the APA’s website, Stephanie Pappas writes of the guidelines, “Thirteen years in the making, they draw on more than 40 years of research showing that traditional masculinity is psychologically harmful and that socializing boys to suppress their emotions causes damage that echoes both inwardly and outwardly.”

And so “traditional masculinity” now joins “patriarchy” as an abstract but menacing force that exercises complete power over its hapless conduits (men) who then wield it to harm everyone else. (Patriarchy does not go unmentioned in the guidelines; as psychology professor Ronald F. Levant told Pappas, “though men benefit from patriarchy, they are also impinged upon by patriarchy.”)

What, then, will the kinder, gentler, nontraditional masculinity ushered in by the APA’s eager practitioners look like? Reading the report, you’d be forgiven for thinking you’d stumbled across a term paper written by a mediocre women’s-studies major. Theory and jargon suffuse the very first guideline, which states, “Psychologists strive to recognize that masculinities are constructed based on social, cultural, and contextual norms.” We are told that “dominant masculinity was historically predicated on the exclusion of men who were not white, heterosexual, cisgender, able-bodied, and privileged.”

By guideline three we are, predictably, reading about the impact of “power, privilege, and sexism,” and readers are reminded that “male privilege often comes with a cost in the form of adherence to sexist ideologies designed to maintain male power that also restrict men’s ability to function adaptively.”

Missing entirely from the report is any mention of the one real thing (as opposed to made-up post-structuralist theoretical things) that does impact men: testosterone. Instead we read of “heteronormative assumptions” and “binary identity” and “microaggressions.” As Toby Young noted in the Spectator, “the word ‘transgender’ occurs more often (56) than ‘masculine’ (53).” As for what psychologists should do with men who are stubbornly, traditionally masculine, the guidelines advise: “Strive to create psychoeducational classes and workshops designed to promote gender empathy, respectful behavior, and communication skills.” Group hug, everyone!

Even when the guidelines properly identify some of the challenges facing boys (such as the fact that they are falling behind girls academically), its authors miss an opportunity to deal with actual challenges as opposed to theoretical ones. Why is the educational system more amenable to traditionally female behavior in the classroom than to male behavior? At the elementary-school level, where most teachers are female and where the supposed pathologies of boys (e.g., difficultly sitting still and concentrating) often first emerge, such behavior is viewed as early evidence of the disease of “traditional masculinity” rather than an understandable expression of frustration with a system that doesn’t always take the needs of young boys into account.

Attacks on masculinity sacrifice the best interests of individual patients to service a political agenda. Consider the final guideline offered in the report: “Work with public health officials to disseminate information regarding the destructive aspects of rigid notions of masculinity may result in inclusion of gender-sensitive public health initiatives for boys and men. Psychologists also are encouraged to advocate for more financial support for research studies aimed at boys and men with special attention to neglected areas of research, such as examining masculinity with other social identity–based experiences.”

Calling for an end to masculine behavior won’t help the men who most need guidance. On the contrary, it polarizes them. This is why far-right extremists online describe the world as divided between real men (themselves) and “soy boys” (everyone who disagrees with them). Their reactionary masculinity and puerile posturing is unlikely to be improved by psychologists hectoring them about their male privilege and “boy code” norms.

These guidelines will effectively be APA policy for the next 10 years, serving as the guideposts for all therapists who treat male patients. In a culture already rife with casual misandry and one where hyperemotional responses move at the speed of Twitter, there is plenty of room for a virtue like stoicism, which the APA claims is harmful to men. Left-leaning psychologists might not like men who embody stoicism, or the competitive instinct that fuels high achievers, or the disciplined aggression that makes for an ideal soldier, but our world would be a less free and prosperous place without them.

As these new APA guidelines suggest, today’s adherents of the therapeutic faith worship the false god of intersectionality.

A politically active Clovis North student is told she can't wear her "Make American Great Again" hat on campus. She's now challenging the school district's decision, saying her first amendment right is being violated.

"How does being a patriot in trying to show pride in your country, how is that inappropriate?"

Clovis North senior, Maddie Mueller doesn't shy away from sharing her political views or wardrobe. She is a member of the "Valley Patriots." the group asked their members to wear their maga hats on Februaury 20th. Maddie was told she couldn't on campus, so she asked if she could wear any trump hat with school colors on it, she says she was told no, citing the dress code.

"To my knowledge Trump is not a logo it's a last name, it's just our President, you can't claim the President is a logo, sports team or affiliated with any gang."

The Clovis Unified School District's dress code does not specify if political hats or shirts are allowed.

"Bottom line for us is the dress code is for kids to feel safe at school and free of distractions so they can focus on learning." said CUSD spokesperson, Kelly Avants.

"Here we are closer to shouting fire in a crowded theater."

Former federal district judge Oliver Wanger says the student's first amendment right is being stripped but the district may have the right to do so.

"If the hat is something that could invoke violence or invoke controversy, then for the sake of the safety for students the school is in their legal right."

Maddie says she's been dress coded repeatedly, for wearing t-shirts that say "build the wall."

"I don't care if I offend anybody I'm just showing support for the President and what I believe."

Maddie's parents support her mission but she says her mom believes the consequences could be severe.

"She's worried they may hold me from graduating if I continue to be vocal and do things like this."

Maddies says she has received some social media threats over this, but that will not stop her from living out her dream of becoming a congresswoman.

It's getting way out of hand dude , it's PC gone mad.

It clearly triggered some SJW They used the word white it must be racist

Even if it was a racial slur you can't prove it , I see the injustice here.

Maybe it's a PR stunt. Are adverts deliberately being racist?

Social Justice Warriors and White knights are male Feminists that echo and support feminist agenda. Social Justice Warriors and White Knights are Beta male orbiters use nice guy approach to hang out with females that have Friend zoned them. The media plays a major role in creating Social Justice warriors and White knights that keep feminist society going. The media has brainwashed many people in Western society and it places too much pressure on guys to conform to a feminist society that works against them. The average woman in Western society gets bombarded by constant attention/validation on social media. The average woman is surrounding by a large network of White Knights and Social Justice Warrior and Beat Male orbiters. Other women are more critical of women and rightfully call them out.

From a young age male children are fed lies and nonsense by their parents and media and they are disempowered and told to be quiet and play the game. Females are empowered by their parents and the media and told you are worth it and you deserve better. No wonder Western society has huge issues, men have become more feminine and females have become more masculine. Social media reenforces feminist society by socially empowering women and socially disempowering the majority of men.