Or, “How You Identity.”

A professional educator, Mrs Donna Starkey of Rye College, East Sussex, attempts to impart her new and shiny knowledge. Two schoolgirls prove troublesome:

Threats of further ideological correction ensue. Apparently, the recorded exchange was prompted by a pupil claiming to identify as a cat, and the two girls, heard above, expressing some doubt.

Update:

Very much related.

Also, open thread. Share ye links and bicker.

Via Nikw211 in the comments, some classroom incongruity:

Parents of kids at Edison High School in Huntington Beach, California say this video was played to their kids in math class. The kids clearly didn’t want to watch this pride video so the teacher threatened them with Saturday school to get them to watch it. pic.twitter.com/FUnB9DKYrN

— Robby Starbuck (@robbystarbuck) June 11, 2023

To paraphrase, but only very slightly:

Not a good look, really. Presumably, the conceit is that any gay pupils will somehow feel affirmed – rather than, say, mortified, or made complicit in something that’s naff and contrived, a vaguely weird imposition. And note that the teacher is the one scolding the kids for being “inappropriate.”

But imagine being a gay kid in the class, possibly a gay kid not entranced by ‘progressive’ politics. Suddenly, the classroom is a world of rainbows and cringe, something the rest of the class groans at and resents having to sit through, again – and it’s all supposedly being done for your benefit. It does rather suggest an unhappy dynamic.

The video, made by other students, and apparently shown in all classes, is presented as both a sentimental review of time spent at the school and an appeal for tolerance and “acceptance” – of cuddling lesbians, glitter-adorned transsexuals, and people with imaginary genders and pronouns. “Don’t forget to love each other,” intones the narrator. It’s very much framed in ‘Pride’ terms – i.e., in terms of social and political “change.” Of “fighting,” alongside “allies,” against unspecified dark forces. As if the purpose of being at school were to become some kind of activist.

Presumably, the forces being fought against include people who think that time in a maths class could perhaps be better spent.

Several people have commented on Twitter and YouTube that the video is unobjectionable and in no way “propaganda.” Well, seen as a child, without wider context, perhaps. But it seems to me that the readiness with which the children have internalised ‘Pride’ and its rainbows and non-binary woo as something unassailably benign illustrates rather well just how effective the propaganda has been.

That the ‘Pride’ movement is intensely political, increasingly extreme – one might say unhinged – and entails rather more than “tolerance” and “acceptance,” is not acknowledged, of course. Apparently, it’s all hugs and sparkles, and being nice.

That the same banners, the same rainbows, the same compelled groupthink, are invoked and deployed to sterilise and mutilate children, and to actively deceive parents, and to make a farce of women’s sports and women’s intimate spaces – for instance – remains unmentioned. And once you’ve demonstrated your acceptance of the flag and all that it entails, what could possibly go wrong? Because it’s all just so nice.

Consider this an open thread. Share ye links and bicker.

In the comments, John draws attention to this item from Personnel Today, a publication for the inhabitants of HR departments, regarding recruitment criteria for the Royal Air Force:

I’m assuming, perhaps charitably, that the word “useless” was with reference to meeting “diversity” targets. The word in question was deployed by former head of recruitment Elizabeth Nicholl, who resigned in protest at such targets being “impossible” to achieve. But still, an unhappy phrasing.

Much of the article covers ground that may be familiar to regular readers:

Because brownness and womb-having are much more important, obviously.

At which point, I’m tempted to ask how these target percentages relate to any actual expressed interest or aptitude – say, among school-leavers – or to any tactical utility, according to which an unusually high number of women and racial minorities would somehow confer a military advantage. Or are they, as seems to be the case, entirely arbitrary?

The paragraph immediately above was posted as a comment on the Personnel Today website. It was held for moderation, then disappeared.

Update, via the comments:

TomJ notes the proliferation throughout the RAF of pointedly gender-neutral terms, along with the ensuing complications, adding: “These are but annoyances, though they no doubt absorbed a lot of admin effort that could have been better directed… It now seems somewhat indicative.” Indeed. Time and resources better spent on the actual, you know, function of the organisation. Which is not, lest we forget, race-and-sex bean-counting.

Perhaps we’re to hope that such frivolous uses of time and resources will result in mere distraction, a loss of focus, and some inadvertent comedy. As if distractedness and waste, and chasing futility, might be the best available options. As opposed to the more typical effect of such endeavours, and of the mindset they reflect, which is the active and rapid corrosion of almost anything they touch, not least in terms of realism, standards, and competence.

Update 2:

In the comments, Jeff Guinn adds,

And so, the closer the RAF comes to these modish but seemingly arbitrary demographic ratios, the more reason there will be to suppose that standards have been lowered and corners cut, and to question the competence of the supposed beneficiaries. As has been the case in just about every other sphere – from academia to firefighting – where this nudging and fudging has been done.

Needless to say, this policy of supposed fairness seems somewhat unfair to those female and minority pilots who, while few in number, are very competent indeed, and whose credentials and reputation may subsequently be called into question as a result of emerging patterns. But hey, progress.

Update 3:

Depending on mood, one might find humour in the practised dishonesties of the progressive campus, where notions of demographic ‘correction’ are commonplace. But when extended to the realm of firefighting, policing, or the military, or medicine, or pretty much any vital infrastructure, then the funny side of things becomes harder to spot. And it’s perhaps worth noting that the mandatory pretence seen in academia, and all but perfected there, has given leverage to inadequates who do not welcome, and seem unlikely to tolerate, any attempt at realism or putting things right.

Given the vigour with which such demographic targets are pursued, and given the corners that are being cut in order to pursue them, on any number of fronts and at considerable expense… then checking the basic assumptions of those pursuing such goals doesn’t strike me as improper.

And yet, as seen in the pages of Personnel Today, some basic questions are not to be asked.

Also, open thread.

Speaking, as we were, of the Guardian’s imperious opinionator Polly Toynbee, madam’s latest outpouring finds her reflecting – if that’s quite the right word – on the burden of her own elevated status. The woes, as it were, of the upper-and-upper-middle-class socialist:

Wait for it.

Update, via the comments:

We’re also told that, as a child, Dear Polly “envied” her much poorer friends, with their “cheerful,” noisy, and rather small dwellings, which had “ever-open front doors.” Though, alas,

As a way to conjure gravitas and fish for sympathy, it’s a bold approach.

The point of the piece quoted above, a long and rambling extract from Ms Toynbee’s forthcoming memoir, is far from clear – as is Polly’s way. However, the gist seems to be that class is a terrible, terrible thing, and that our author, a descendant of the Ninth Earl of Carlisle, and whose life is cushioned by multiple homes, here and overseas, and a well-into-six-figure income, is every bit as much a victim of it. What with her fretting so much.

For brevity’s sake, I’ll attempt to paraphrase: ‘I have never known, and will never know, anything approaching poverty. My lack of diligence, or indeed competence, has never been a significant setback, on account of my class and privilege. Therefore, you should listen to me and do exactly as I say.’

Again, bold. Must be that “painful self-awareness.”

In the comments, further thoughts occur.

Update 2:

Regarding Polly’s purported envy of the humble and downtrodden, Mike D asks,

Which reminded me of the reliably ludicrous George Monbiot, a man who agonises over the “isolating” effects of disposable income, double glazing, and TV remote controls, and who believes that we – thee and me – should imitate the peasants of southern Ethiopia, where homes are made of leaves and packing cases, and where, despite Stone Age sanitation and alarming child mortality, “the fields crackle with laughter.”

For Dear Polly, mingling with the working class is somewhat similar, I should think.

Oh, and Mr Monbiot, lest we forget, was schooled at Stowe, an imposing boarding school in Buckinghamshire, where annual fees are a mere £36,000.

At which point, readers may discern the makings of a pattern.

Consider this an open thread. Share ye links and bicker.

He likes to intimidate women and to pilfer things of no possible use to him.

Now tell him how pretty he is. Repeatedly.

Update, via the comments:

Note the obfuscatory use of the term TERF, which in context simply means women. Or non-compliant women. Or women caught off guard.

Oh, and a riposte of note:

Also, open thread. Share ye links and bicker.