Her Teacher Took Great Interest
Miki Lorren, a one-time tomboy, “a gay woman living in the conservative south,” has some thoughts:
If you watch one thing today, make it this.
I’m so glad for this marvellous girl. But it was a close call, as she explains.
“You’re just a Tomboy” pic.twitter.com/GZgXwEDJrO
— James Dreyfus (@DreyfusJames) August 29, 2025
Note the presumption of the keen-to-enable teachers.
Ms Lorren has other thoughts worth sharing, among which this:
Well, yes. Quite. And not just weird.
“Teacher Robi,” mentioned in Ms Lorren’s video, has cropped up here before, prompting readers to marvel at her classroom lectures on “non-binary” pronoun woo, which she expects small children to internalise and regurgitate, “every single time,” regardless of physical reality, lest they find themselves being corrected by this bullying narcissist.
Teacher Robi’s low-effort wardrobe solutions, her display of I-make-bad-choices tattoos, and her disdain for anything resembling customary professionalism, also prompted comment. As did the consequent, quite vivid mismatch with her platitudes about the importance of classroom role models.
Readers who are parents are invited to imagine any other scenario in which a scruffily-dressed stranger starts talking to your 8-year-old about her sexuality, her sexual identity, while expecting that same 8-year-old to actively participate in her mental health problems.
Oh, and as Ms Lorren says in one of her other videos,
Via Darleen in the comments. Which you’re reading, of course.
Mansplaining: between men it is a type of sport. Some groups will argue about sports and that includes guys “mansplaining” something about some team or player. Among a bunch of engineers (my friends) it can get pretty technical. If you say something dumb, the other guys will gleefully correct you. But I have also had guys ask me to explain something to them, at length, including mortgages, 401ks, climate change, how to tell if your roof needs changing. I’ve seen guys ask another guy for an explanation of bitcoin or AI. For guys, knowledge is power because it enables you to do things or avoid trouble. It also becomes a status thing. Women should sit in on such a session and see if they would enjoy the sparring and debating–most do not.
The narcissism is hard to ignore.
…
All together now: It’s so tiresome.
I jumped in on the Charles Murray thread — well, the thread started by Daisy Dixon — and got some revealing answers:
And speaking of people with whom discussion would not be a thrilling prospect.
She’s an “expert” in philosophy. Those are just about the worst kind.
Someone in that thread said something to the effect that you don’t tell a professional baseball player how to play baseball. Odd coincidence, I had just ran across an interesting video about the physics of throwing a football (not the gay kind but the kind they’re trying to make gay..but I digress) spiral. It was meeting of two kinds of experts. One being Tom Brady, one of the best, most accurate passers in NFL history, and the others being a bunch of physics/cameras geeks. Two kinds of experts explaining how their specific expertise informs the others’ expertise. Trying to imagine how that video would have gone had all the experts been two groups of women discussing any other different forms of expertise that they might be experts about.
Maybe eventually she will be able to deal with whatever trauma, delusion or malfunction turned her away from her normal procreative sexuality.
Ya think?
Imagine a man being annoyed by a woman speaking to him the way she speaks to other women
from the tweet Dicentra is replying to:
I was noticing that back in the 70’s: Feminists would condemn something as “sexist” even though it was how men behaved towards each other. The most extreme example: “Why is it sexist when some men seek casual sex with women they’ve just met, but it’s not sexist when gay men do that? In both cases the men are seeking a playmate with no emotional strings, no social obligations, no genuine interest in the other’s well-being. They’re just using someone for pleasure. So what’s different about doing it with women?” The feminists had no answer–except for silent rage.
This may partly explain black educational failure. If it’s not about blacks then they’re not interested.
Even in his apology he cannot be honest:
It’s obvious from the video that he knew he was snatching something being offered to the kid. He could admitted that his emotions took over but he couldn’t admit even that.
The non-apology apology. We can thank the lawyers for our increasingly corse society. Admitting doing something wrong creates legal problems. The tort system jumps on it. So we get these mealy mouthed so-called apologies that often make things worse. Things cannot be put to bed because one side knows that wasn’t a real apology but the other has had its lawyers assure them that it was. It doesn’t bode well for civility.
Every time I hear that word I think of this commercial.
Suggestion: These are women who just hate men and need reasons to justify it.
Somewhere in my library I have a book by a (ex-leftist) lesbian who used to be high up in a California chapter of the National Organization for Women. She remarked that nearly all the women in the organization were indeed lesbians who hated men.
It’s just a shit test. That’s all it is. “How much can we needle, demean, and provoke you until you put us in our place, and by doing so demonstrate that you are powerful enough to protect and provide for us.”
I’ve mentioned before that feminism in general is a form of civilizational shit test, one we are failing very badly.
Steyn called it the leftward ratchet. When the left is in power they push their agenda, and when the right is in power at best they prevent the ratchet from progressing any further, but they never regain ground. And when the left regains power, they ratchet the Overton Window even further, again.
Massachusetts teachers have the legal right to transition your children because you thought it was a fine and dandy thing to allow zero-tolerance policies against physical violence in schools to be used against verbal playground taunts.
When feminists raise the issue, inevitably in this manner, why is the explanation always ‘this is because mansplaining is fundamentally sexist’, and not ‘maybe this is an example where men and women tend to react differently’? When Rebecca Solnit used the term to describe the actions of a man explaining at elaborate length the contents of her own book to her, you feel the ludicrousness of the act – clearly the guy was an idiot. But when the generations of progressives that come after describe every act of a man opening their mouth as ‘mansplaining’, it’s clear that the term quickly went from being something useful to a meaningless cliche.
In any other scenario the police would be involved.
That was Tammy Bruce. It “only” took me 3 days to remember her name.
I believe I read her remark about lesbians in NOW in her 2003 book The New Thought Police. But after 22 years I cannot be sure of that, or be entirely sure of the words she wrote. Maybe it was in an interview, or podcast, or whatever.