Reheated (131)
Because some things bear repeating, a few items from the archives:
Raising boys, the progressive way.
It is, I think, worth picturing what it would be like to be a boy raised by an ostentatiously progressive father, a social worker and therapist, who sneers at men “boxed in by masculinity” – for instance, men who own wrenches.
Unlike our ideologically emasculated neurotic, who imagines himself on a much higher plane, and who “spirals into panic” at the mere thought of a toolbox or anything approaching manual labour.
“Real witches” offer progressive parenting advice.
Academics whose paycheque depends on propagating misery.
“You can… mouth the words that are white, but… they’re coming from a [black] body,” says Dr Inoue, as if expecting applause.
In Dr Inoue’s classroom, a student’s ambition to develop linguistic skills, to be clearly understood, and to succeed in life, must be subordinate to the paranoid, tribal politics conceived by Dr Inoue. So, no selfishness there, clearly. As a display of the pernicious and perverse, it’s quite a thing.
Achieving proficiency and wishing to be taken seriously as someone capable of thought are framed by Dr Inoue as some kind of internalised oppression. And being able to express yourself precisely, and getting a job you want, is somehow a failure, a betrayal of authentic blackness. And by implication, getting on in life – being able to provide for yourself and your family – is, according to Dr Inoue, “a really shitty choice.”
This, then, is the man to whom hopes should be entrusted.
On fabulist “identities,” and malice with impunity.
The risk of being punched, vigorously, is important. It inhibits quite a lot of recreational malice.
Lecturer in “critical whiteness studies” apologises, at length, for his heterosexuality.
One wonders how a species of suitably corrected human beings, purged of such heterosexual inclinations, might propagate and flourish. Such that we can indulge the theatrical sorrows of lecturers in “critical whiteness studies.”
For those craving more, this is a pretty good place to start.
Consider this an open thread. Share ye links and whatnot.
ISWYDT
[ Looks at Other Half’s ratcheting screwdriver set. ]
Just remembered this, from the Daddy’s Baggage post:
Yes, we will engage and connect by not being permitted to talk about things.
from the link:
Contemptible man married woman who holds him in contempt.
I’m often puzzled by how some people struggle to see that things of this kind aren’t simply a matter of faulty political ideas, or some error in thinking. But are, to a very large extent, a manifestation of dysfunctional personalities. I mean, Mr Deitcher, a man who “felt ill” at the mention of tools, and Professor Yancy, who insists that appreciating thanks is both “violent” and “toxic,” aren’t merely mistaken.
Indian “migrant” is highly skilled future CEO (of welfare benefit grifting).
Pour encourager les autres.
I’m guessing this would be an existential crisis.
My favorite thing in the article is how he recoils from the hyper-aggressive masculine family business… Of being an interior designer. And measuring windows for drapes is the manual labor that sends him into the cold sweats.
His whole outpouring on the subject is just so contrived, one might say reactionary, and so ill-informed. As I said in the post,
And male farmers. lest we forget, tend to have wives who are also farmers.
There is, I’d suggest, a pattern. Let’s not forget this weird, effete meltdown by a senior editor of ThinkProgress. A fit of neuroticism that Mr Resnikoff felt important to share publicly with his peers, in order to establish his progressive credentials.
The importance of commas:
Dysfunctional people are attracted to dysfunctional ideas.
But dysfunctional ideologies can also be used to indoctrinate people into attitudes and behaviors which are self-destructive.
And so, a vicious circle.
Every leftist is an abuser.
Further to recent rumblings about the films of Christopher Nolan, this may amuse.
Edwardum occidere nolite timere bonum est.
You don’t get this over at Worstall’s place.
Pleasing informality.
Should one be needed, another example here. The air of pathology, of cultivated neuroticism, should be obvious. It does rather stink up the room.
Look what those silly frogs are up to now.
This Canadian crime must not go unpunished!
Remember when the UK government promoted universal surveillance as a means to protect us all from crime? The swift arrest of a suspect in the murder of Anne Widdecombe suggests that the cameras are often effective, but the tendency of the courts to give short prison sentences (or none) to violent criminals drastically reduces the cameras’ usefulness.
Canada, your enemies are laughing at you.
I cannot begin to imagine living a life in which the ideal to which I should strive apparently is a jellyfish.
Y’all Brits have a LOT to answer for: https://x.com/i/status/2076512362371371238
I think now we understand why Jenkins’ ear was worth going to war over. The Brits wanted to cook it.
What part of the poor creature is that?
Perhaps the aversion to tool use is intended to show how upper crust he is. How he won’t stoop to that low level of getting dirty like a common laborer. Snobbery has a certain appeal to some. This type of snobbery is much less in the US where there is still a residue of self-reliance. My friends all will fix their own household things like minor plumbing, painting, electrical even though they are pretty well-off.
The aversion to masculinity, however, is more baffling. IRL, it is wives who push their husbands to do masculine things (kill spiders, fix leaks, move heavy objects, paint). And it is wives who are happy with husbands who do those things and who reward them for doing it. At least in my universe.
When I was in high school it was not uncommon for the college-bound students to look down on the students who took shop classes.
When I was in university there was widespread disdain for the “townies”.
Blame it on feminists and male feminists.
It’s all rather surreal. Quite close to farce.
There’s the inevitable vanity, the imperviousness to criticism, veering into delusion. “So many big manly men are being triggered by my essay,” boasts Mr Deitcher, while applauding himself for supposedly exposing “patriarchy” and “hyper-masculinity.” His critics, he tells us, were “clearly threatened.”
But this is just more practised dishonesty. His critics were rather more concerned by his neuroticism and dogmatism, which are quite hard to miss, and their possible effect on a two-year-old boy.
Mr Deitcher announces, “I’ve prided myself on blurring gender lines,” as if this were a matter of merely being chill with whatever his small son takes an interest in. But by his own account, this parental gender-blurring involves endless nudging and censorship, and the panicked and pre-emptive hiding away of clothing with footballs on it, and any other object deemed too manly.
It doesn’t seem chill at all. It seems uptight and proscriptive. Dementedly ideological.
The words transgender wrestling lawsuit struck me as rather funny.
Though the story less so.
Literary pun of note.
I’m not responsible for violence against women. I don’t have a ‘role’ in it.
Gaslighting f*ckers.
Well, quite. Fuckers indeed. The professor, like so many of his peers, is quite eager to speak on your behalf, and to sell you down the river.
And so, Professor Yancy enthusiastically cites Bell Hooks – specifically, her claim that all men – including those with wives and daughters – “unconsciously engage in patriarchal thinking, which condones rape even though they may never enact it.” “This,” we’re told, “is a patriarchal truism.”
I mean, dear God, where do you even start?
And it’s likely that Professor Yancy, and many readers and employees of the New York Times, would recoil from a suggestion that actual brutes – rapists and gropers and so forth – should be dealt with in a decisive manner. One likely to deter or make impossible any further misbehaviour. Instead, they seem determined to displace their disapproval onto much less obvious targets.
Conventions of surname-taking, for instance, or appreciating thanks. All of which are “toxic” and “dehumanising,” apparently, a crushing boot on the face of women.
“If you are a woman reading this, I have failed you,” says Professor Yancy, his face reddened with shame, before denouncing his “uninterrogated collective misogyny.” By which he seems to mean the fact that he finds women, not men, arousing.
There’s certainly an air of failure, of wretchedness – though, not, I suspect, one that our professor has in mind.
And that’s before we get to the whole “dominant phallic economy” thing, the particulars of which remain shrouded and mysterious.
Oh, and let’s not forget the professor’s insinuation that teenage girls are somehow sexually inert and are only the reluctant, put-upon receivers of attention, not actual participants in a mutual dance.
There’s a whole network of
handlerspeople encouraging, applauding and rewarding this sort of behavior from these morons.What’s striking, I think, is the imperviousness. The colossal, unshiftable vanity. Such that when hundreds of people point out mistakes, factual errors or unconvincing claims, the typical response is not engagement or wheeling out better evidence, but sneery dismissal. For not having the most fashionable, high-status opinions.
It’s practically a signature of the type, seen more times than I can count.
Because they live their entire lives in a fantasy world. Everyone around them, everything that happens is filtered through a narrative that gives them explanations for anything conflicting with the Narrative. They have never had to pay a price for being wrong. Why would they think any different? Why would they care when people, obviously they are lunatics or else they wouldn’t object, point out their mistakes?
The disconnect is that those pointing out the mistakes are using logic and reason. Well, for the most part. It’s not about logic and reason. It’s about repetition, volume, and threats/implications of violence.
On a lighter note . . . my stepson once told me that a guy getting it in the nuts will never not be funny.
Yet another leftist expending words to deny biological reality. For evil purposes. A professor of philosophy, no less. After seeing such drivel one must be reminded that not all professors of philosophy are professional liars.
There are, in fact, feminists and male feminists who will confidently declare that sexual arousal should be triggered by Correct Political Thought.
A black racist, please note. Would it be cruel to suggest to him that the problem is not his heterosexuality but rather his blackness? His ghettoness?
On that note, his chest is poppin’!
It’s quite remarkable, especially from people who want us to know just how clever they are. The same shameless manoeuvre: Assert something dubious or question-begging or patently untrue and then, when challenged or corrected – sometimes politely, sometimes not – seize on the impolite replies as invalidating all the others. Such that one needn’t acknowledge them and thereby risk embarrassment, a loss of status.
Laurie Penny springs to mind as an obvious example. I lost count of how many times she framed practically any attempt at factual correction as sexism or misogyny or “hate,” as if she were besieged for simply being a woman (not, say, a fantasist or liar), thereby excusing her from any obligation to engage, while elevating her to a blessed state of victimhood.
As I said in the last paragraph here,
That’s not an everyday kind of vanity. That’s something else.
“I’m secure in myself,” he says.
Some of the more skilled practitioners of this shabby, low-rent manoeuvre are professors of philosophy.
Lest anyone doubt ’tis so.
And of course Mr Caleb Luna.
As I clumsily attempted to imply.
I have not personally known any philosophy professors or undergrad/grad majors who were not arrogant, leftist wankers.
Anyone who becomes sexually aroused by reading Marxist theory or hearing Marxist rants is so defective as to belong on some sort of watch list.