... created by the Liberals

*******

Yeah, if a woman is overweight, she's a victim of fat shaming, racism, genderism, sexism, classism, thin privilege - it's all our fault, we are to blame.

So fatness is a Social Justice Issue.

'Fat Studies' course deems 'weightism' a 'social justice issue'

[www.campusreform.org]

Oregon State University will offer a spring course on “fat studies” in order to teach students how “weight-based oppression” is a “social justice issue.”

According to a syllabus for the course obtained by Campus Reform, students will examine “body weight, shape, and size as an area of human difference subject to privilege and discrimination that intersects with other systems of oppression based on gender, race, class, age, sexual orientation, and ability.”

[RELATED: UW program explores dangers of masculinity]

“Indeed, as the ‘War on Obesity’ has escalated, so has weight-based bias and discrimination,” Lou-Watkins adds, noting that “weight bias is particularly evident among healthcare professionals, compromising the well-being of their patients.”

“I grew to embrace feminist pedagogy in terms of course content as well as classroom practices,” she explains. “My course now frames body image disturbances more as a function of oppressive societal structures than of individual pathology."

Indeed, students enrolled in her spring Fat Studies course will be presented with opportunities to explore “forms of activism used to counter weightism perpetuated throughout various societal institutions.”

The three-credit course, however, is not the only of its kind at OSU, with another class called “Women, Weight, and Body Image” similarly examining “weightism as a system of oppression that interacts with other systems of oppression” such as “sexism, racism, classism, heterosexism, ableism, and ageism.”

*******

'Fat studies' embrace diversity and take on the biases of being overweight

[college.usatoday.com]

Now, however, academia is here to help counter the fat-shaming. A growing number of schools are adding “fat studies” to their curricula, including Dickinson College, Tufts University and Oregon State. The latest: Portland State University in Oregon, which for spring semester added “Every Body Matters – Embracing Size and Diversity.”

“I (wanted to) focus on fatness as a social and cultural construction, examining the relationship between discrimination caused by body size and gender, race, and social class,” says Lindsey Schuhmacher, instructor of the course at Portland State. “Students use social justice and health care perspectives to question weight bias and explore ways in which the fat community and its supporters resist sizeism.”

******

Within the last two years, Oregon State University (OSU), Tufts University, Dickinson College, Willamette College, the University of Maryland-College Park, and Portland State University have all offered at least one fat studies course.

The courses, typically taught in women’s studies or sociology departments, teach students about issues such as “weight justice,” “fat liberation,” and “fatness as a social construct.”

Meanwhile, the description of the spring 2018 “Fat Studies” class taught by Dickinson College Professor Amy Farrell states that students “will examine the development of fat stigma and the ways it intersects with gendered, racial, ethnic, and class constructions.”

“Fat Pedagogy: Improving Teaching and Learning for EveryBODY,” aims to help professors of all disciplines promote “discourse around body weight, shape, and size, and challenge the social hierarchies and structures of dominance that perpetuate weight bias in educational contexts.”

New book slams ‘toxic geek masculinity’ in Big Bang Theory

[www.campusreform.org]

Two professors have written a new book warning of a trend they call "toxic geek masculinity," which they see evidenced in television shows such as "The Big Bang Theory."

According to the book, popular culture is undergoing a “cultural shift” whereby “geek masculinity has become part of hegemonic, white, male masculinity.

Though computer geeks are often depicted as marginalized due to their social exclusion, Blodgett and Salter argue that the opposite is actually true, asserting that geeks are aligned “with a type of toxic straight white masculinity that is rooted deeply in current cultural struggles.”

"The characters are deeply lacking in self-awareness regarding their roles in a sexist workplace, and this same lack of understanding is constantly played for humor."

“Geek masculinity, with its absence of hypermasculine qualities and apparent association with ‘un-masculine’ traits, is often cast in popular culture as a marginalized masculinity,” the professors note, but they make clear that they do not buy this interpretation.

“The dichotomy is false: geek masculinity is not marginalized,” they contend. “It is instead an inevitable evolution of hegemonic masculinity in a culture where dominance and technical mastery are increasingly interwoven.”

The book concludes by arguing that toxic geek masculinity is just an inevitable evolution of hegemonic masculinity more generally.

“Much like the break within the Democratic Party along racial lines in the 1948 election, more traditionally presenting geeks, white, middle-class, educated men are being pulled towards supporting the traditional power structure,” the professors write, asserting that this ultimately reflects an ongoing “cultural shift” whereby “geek masculinity has become part of hegemonic, white, male masculinity.”

Prof calls ‘digital manspreading’ an act of 'toxic masculinity'

[www.campusreform.org]

A University of Wisconsin-Madison instructor warns in a new academic journal article that "digital manspreading" is a form of "online misogyny" that silences scholars.

A professor at the University of Wisconsin-Madison is warning against “digital manspreading” on the Internet, calling it a form of “online harrassment.”

Brandi Easter, a doctoral candidate who also teaches literature classes, argues that “digital manspreading” happens because men are socialized to “take up space”—not just on public transit, but online too.

"This silencing calls for scholars to attend seriously to the everyday spatial, material, and embodied structures and forces of online misogyny."

Digital manspreading, she explains, “is an act of privilege, entitlement, and toxic masculinity” due to the fact that men’s interactions with “online space, made through the affordances of digital infrastructures, are gendered, material, and embodied.”

Though Easter uses the story of C+= to explain how digital manspreading happens, she also asserts that digital manspreading could be a “helpful lens” to critique other manifestations of masculinity in the digital sphere.

Further, Easter contends that digital manspreading causes the the silencing of women of women online, since when men digitally manspread, they take up space that could otherwise go towards promoting women's’ perspectives and concerns.

The article was dedicated to sexism online, alongside other articles including “Attack of the 50-foot social justice warrior” and “Online Misogyny and the alternative right: debating the undebatable.”

'Manspreading' a sign of 'sexist environment,' student claims

[www.campusreform.org]

“Manspreading” on campus buses is indicative of the larger culture of sexism that is pervasive on campus, according to one University of North Texas student.

Brittany Sodic, a UNT senior studying journalism and women’s studies, made the claim in an op-ed published in the online magazine Study Breaks, arguing that manspreading is “one of the most obvious physical symptoms of a sexist environment that can be encountered in every area of campus.”

Sodic describe manspreading as “the act of physically spreading one’s body out in a way that takes up much needed room,” noting that it might make other people, such as women, “make themselves smaller to compensate.”

[RELATED: Female student demands men ‘step back’ in class discussions]

Since the goal of her article is to teach her readers ways to “subvert” sexism on campus, Sodic explains how she fights manspreading on campus, saying, “Every time a man sat next to me and chose to man-spread, I simply assumed the same posture as him, which inevitably led to both of us pushing on one another with our knees.”

Unfortunately, most men she does this to “are genuinely confused” and “visibly annoyed” by her, a reaction Sodic says she finds ironic, since she considers manspreading “a tool for men to attempt to dominate these spaces and constantly remind women that they belong only contingent upon male benevolence.”

Sodic told Campus Reform she wrote her article on sexism because “these little things affected my overall experience at my school, and I know it would have been more pleasant and less anxiety-inducing for me on campus had these, and other forms of sexism not existed.”

[RELATED: Feminist students campaign against ‘sexist microaggressions’]

“It's something that I thought about a lot during my time in school and I never really knew what to do about it,” she added, observing that “subtle issues are sometimes unnoticed by the people perpetuating them, and without addressing it, nothing will change.”

Sodic also cited other forms of sexism in her op-ed, such as street harassment, men dominating conversation, and “sharing sidewalks,” which is problematic because many men expect women to move out of the way if they’re walking towards each other.

Sodic employs the same approach to sidewalk sexism as she does with manspreading sexism. If a man is walking towards her on a narrow sidewalk and he doesn’t alter his course, she doesn’t either, and writes that she’s had “literal run-ins with guys on campus, shoulders hitting” because of it.

While she writes that this isn’t a “perfect solution,” Sodic notes triumphantly that “small victories are still victories.”

Pitt display calls 'be a man' example of 'toxic masculinity'

[www.campusreform.org]

A display recently surfaced at the University of Pittsburgh that labeled a “male protagonist” as making “a living being violent,” being “white,” and owning “lots of guns.”

According to pictures of the display obtained by Campus Reform, one of the posters featured presented a flowchart of behaviors that perpetuate “hegemonic masculinity,” including “gendered socialisation,” “power inequality,” “social/health inequality,” “social reproduction of patriarchy,” and “patriarchal society.”

Another poster, titled “Stereotyped Gendered Behaviors,” portrayed a picture of a male next to the term “masculinity,” as well as a picture of a female next to the term “femininity” with a line dividing the two labeled “neutral androgeny [sic].”

The display also included a guide to “toxic masculinity,” with actions associated with the term listed as “emasculation,” “suppressed emotions,” “be a man,” “violence,” and “never a victim.”

Diverting from the topic of “toxic masculinity” and “gendered stereotypes,” a different poster warns about the dangers that men deal with compared to their female counterparts.

According to the poster, men are “2x as likely to be diagnosed with ADHD,” while “1/5th [of] men will develop alcohol dependence,” and are “4x more likely than girls to be diagnosed with autism.”

A final poster features “Male Protagonist Bingo,” listing characteristics of male protagonists, such as “killing spree,” “white,” “makes a living being violent,” “bald/crew cut,” and finally “guns. Lots of guns.”

Stanford Professor: Dungeons and Dragons Perpetuates Systems of White, Male Privilege

[www.breitbart.com]

A professor of education at Stanford University argues in a recent academic journal article that the tabletop game Dungeons & Dragons perpetuates white privilege.

Standford University Professor Antero Garcia argues in an academic journal article that the popular game Dungeons and Dragons perpetuates systems of privilege.

Focusing on how the tabletop role-playing game Dungeons & Dragons is built on a system of play that has grown and shifted over the course of 40 years, this study emphasizes the central role that systems play in mediating the experiences of participants. By focusing on depictions of gender, race, and power in Dungeons & Dragons — as a singular cultural practice — this study highlights how researchers must attend to cultural production both around and within systems.

Garcia argues that Dungeons and Dragons encourages a distrust of the “other.” It’s a weird focus for a Stanford scholar, especially since Garcia concedes that race in Dungeons & Dragons is not much like race in the real world. In the game, the characters are divided by their species. Some characters are elves, some are dwarves, and some are halfings, according to Garcia.

Professor Garcia doesn’t stop there. He bemoans the fact that Dungeons & Dragons began as a “white man’s” hobby. He argues that wargaming communities are “male-dominated,” even though the inventor of Dungeons & Dragons tested the tabletop game out by letting his daughter play.

Garcia’s 16-page article focuses on the representation of women in the game. According to Garica’s research, by 2014, more than half of the game’s depicted characters are female.

According to the article, Garcia’s ultimate wish is to see Dungeons & Dragons move beyond its problematic past into a more diverse and inclusive future.

More Lib Women's Gobbledygook -

Sociologist claims veganism promotes 'white masculinity'

[www.campusreform.org]

A recent academic journal article by four engineering professors bemoans the prevalence of "masculine social norms" in the field, saying it deters women from becoming engineers.

According to the professors, the “desire to win,” “emotional regulation,” “dominance over others,” the “need to be high performing,” and “hegemonic masculinity” are all among the harmful norms in engineering culture.

A sociology instructor at North Carolina State University (NCSU) is warning in a new academic article that vegan men are guilty of perpetuating “white masculinity.”

“Meatless meals and masculinity” was written by Mari Mycek, a doctoral candidate and teaching assistant in the NCSU sociology department, who argues that vegan and vegetarian men have reclaimed their “previously-stigmatized consumption identity” to wield power over women by framing their lifestyle as a rational, rather than emotional, choice.

"These performances of masculinity are aligned with white middle-class social norms and expectations."

Though some scholars claim that eating meat causes “toxic masculinity,” Mycek came to a different conclusion based on interviews with 20 vegan men, asserting that they actually tend to “uphold gendered binaries of emotion/rationality and current ideas of middle-class, white masculinity.”

[RELATED: Eating meat perpetuates ‘hegemonic masculinity,’ prof says]

Mycek argues that vegan men use their diet to bolster their masculinity “by explaining their choice to become [vegan] in ways that evoke logics of rationality, science, and reason, concepts that also traditionally get coded as masculine."

Observing that “these performances of masculinity are aligned with white middle-class social norms and expectations,” she contends that middle-class men are uniquely poised to take advantage of this status-building strategy.

Mycek also frames veganism as a privilege for the elite, explaining that it symbolizes for men “a form of cultural capital and a symbolic resource, a way to align oneself with those who have the privilege of choice when it comes to food decisions.”

Men are especially guilty of perpetuating white masculinity if they frame their choice to become vegan as “rational” as opposed to “emotional,” Mycek asserted.

Mycek also argues that men who cite expert research on the benefits of veganism are enacting white middle-class masculinity, since “facts” conflict with more feminine sources of knowledge such as “value” or “opinion.”

Understanding how men transform “feminized activities” into acceptable masculine practices is “important because it bolsters the gender binary, maintaining the idea that men and women are distinctly different,” Mycek contends, declaring that “this is not just about maintaining difference between genders but ultimately [retaining] a gender hierarchy and structures of power and inequality.”

"Cultural Appropriation"

Another righteous Lib Women's Concept created to accuse 'the other side' of Xenophobia.

A girl wears a Chinese style dress to her prom and she gets 'Shamed' (that's another righteous Lib Women's concept) by the Lib Women because it's ta-da "Cultural Appropriation". "White People wearing offensive things."

The Lib Women are in their element jumping all over her. Just another example of today's Lib Culture - I think it's sickening.

***********

Shaming teen for wearing ‘racist’ dress to prom is crazy -- Where does nonsense of cultural appropriation end?

[www.foxnews.com]

"Keziah Daum, an 18-year-old high school student in Woods Cross, Utah, has found herself on the receiving end of vicious and scathing abuse on social media for shocking act of … daring to wear a traditional Chinese dress to a prom.

Say what?

Keziah is not Asian. So she is guilty, in the minds of those mindless cowards of the keyboard, of a newly developed left-wing cardinal sin called “cultural appropriation.”

As of Tuesday afternoon, Keziah’s tweet showing her wearing the red and yellow dress had been retweeted more than 6,000 times and liked more than 94,000 times.

Keziah is not apologizing. Her tweet said she wore the dress to show respect for Chinese culture.

But a nasty tweet from a young Asian-American man responding to Keziah, saying: “My culture is NOT your g------ prom dress” has been retweeted more than 41,000 times and liked more than 178,000 times.

If you’ve never heard of cultural appropriation, consider yourself lucky – it means you aren’t surrounded by politically correct pinheads who are only happy when they consider themselves offended (or “alienated,” in their own language) by something, somewhere.

The term cultural appropriation is borrowed from sociology – itself a dubious academic discipline to begin with. The term means that people from a majority culture are borrowing aspects of minority culture without the permission of those minority members.

But there’s another way to express the concept of cultural appropriation – it’s called human nature. It’s only natural for people to appreciate the contributions of other groups – ethnic, religious, racial, or whatever – and to adapt those ideas or appearances for themselves.

It’s been going on for millennia.

These days, the McCarthyites of the left are demanding that no one ever use anyone else’s appearance, culture, clothing, music, or anything else, without the express written permission of the group from which that item or idea comes.

What a relief that cultural appropriation wasn’t a “thing” in the late 18th century, when Britain, France and Germany went gaga for Chinese porcelain, creating massive wealth for Asian artisans who sent millions of pieces of china to Europe and created huge domestic industries for china in those nations.

I sure hope none of the Cultural Appropriation Fan Club use china in their homes … because if they are, they’re guilty of cultural appropriation themselves!

In 1837, the great French composer Hector Berlioz based the Dies Irae movement of his great Requiem on a line of Gregorian chant, which had been composed almost 800 years earlier. Should we put Berlioz on a new “index” of forbidden cultural items, because he dared borrow from a religious order of which he was not a part?

Should we slash all the Paul Gauguin canvases across the world’s museums, because he painted women from Tahiti?

Pablo Picasso developed a fascination with African masks, which led to African art becoming known and admired in Europe in the first half of the 20th century.

Bad Picasso! Bad Picasso!

Should non-Latinos never be allowed into Mexican restaurants? Should non-Asians be barred from Chinese restaurants? Should white people not be permitted to listen to jazz, or Asians be barred from listening to the Beatles? Should leftists whose first language isn’t Latin be allowed to use words derived from Latin … of which “cultural” and “appropriation” are just two?

Oh, and by the way, back to the subject of clothing: about 33 percent of all clothes and 72 percent of all shoes, boots and other footwear sold in the U.S. are made in China. And more than 97 percent of the clothes and 98 percent of the shoes and other footwear sold in the U.S. are made in other countries.

Getting rid of all those items in our closets could give new meaning to phrase “I have nothing to wear.” Not to mention terminating employment for people around the world making our clothes and shoes.

Where does the nonsense of cultural appropriation end?

How about right here, right now?

America is supposed to be an appreciation of cultural mores – whether we’re a melting pot or a salad bowl, we’re a society that honors contributions from immigrants and visitors from all over the globe.

The left wants us to step backwards into a world where we are suspicious of one another and not allowed to get to know each other or what we think about or stand for. That’s the exact opposite of what’s needed today, when there is little positive communication across the barricades that seem to have been erected in society.

Cultural appropriation really means cultural Balkanization, a world where we are afraid to admire the works and contributions of people who are different from ourselves.

Combine that concept with a system of social media that allows for the condemning of those who dare to cross the line – a line they may never even have heard of.

What happened Keziah on Twitter is a public shaming far worse than the 17th century witch hunts, because the shunning doesn’t stop at the edge of one’s neighborhood. Every disparaging tweet or post travels internationally and becomes a part of that person’s permanent, indelible online record. That’s the real shame.

The proponents of cultural appropriation didn’t likely intend for their clever little idea to be picked up by haters across the planet and used as a means of humiliating people they never met … in this case, a young woman who merely committed the outrageous crime of wearing a dress to her prom. Or maybe they’re thrilled by all this.

I’ll tell you the real reason Keziah has come in for such vitriol: it’s because she’s a beautiful young woman, judging by the photographs, and she looks terrific in her Chinese dress.

I think all those haters out there are just jealous."

... created by the Liberals feel free to sing along Jennifer, They are playing your song! my dear

Love Me, I'm a Liberal
Phil Ochs




Love Me, I'm a Liberal Lyrics

I cried when they shot Medgar Evers
Tears ran down my spine
I cried when they shot Mr. Kennedy
As though I'd lost a father of mine
But Malcolm X got what was coming
He got what he asked for this time
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I go to civil rights rallies
And I put down the old D.A.R
I love Harry and Sidney and Sammy
I hope every colored boy becomes a star
But don't talk about revolution
That's going a little bit too far
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I cheered when Humphrey was chosen
My faith in the system restored
I'm glad the commies were thrown out
Of the A.F.L. C.I.O. board
I love Puerto Ricans and Negros
As long as they don't move next door
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

The people of old Mississippi
Should all hang their heads in shame
I can't understand how their minds work
What's the matter don't they watch Les Crane?
But if you ask me to bus my children
I hope the cops take down your name
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal


I read New republic and Nation
I've learned to take every view
You know, I've memorized Lerner and Golden
I feel like I'm almost a Jew
But when it comes to times like Korea
There's no one more red, white and blue
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

I vote for the democratic party
They want the U.N. to be strong
I go to all the Pete Seeger concerts
He sure gets me singing those songs
I'll send all the money you ask for
But don't ask me to come on along
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

Once I was young and impulsive
I wore every conceivable pin
Even went to the socialist meetings
Learned all the old union hymns
But I've grown older and wiser
And that's why I'm turning you in
So love me, love me, love me, I'm a liberal

Todays culture in the white southern Christian staes?---GERMS



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/03/2018 03:57AM by riverhousebill.

So 'they' (Lib Women) turned the Girl Scouts into Libs ...

100 Questions for the Girl Scouts

[www.100questionsforthegirlscouts.org]

The Girl Scouts and Planned Parenthood -

[www.100questionsforthegirlscouts.org]

The Girl Scouts and International Planned Parenthood Federation

[www.100questionsforthegirlscouts.org]

The Girl Scouts and Pro-Abortion WAGGGS

[www.100questionsforthegirlscouts.org]

The Girl Scouts and Abortion

[www.100questionsforthegirlscouts.org]

Girl Scouts and Sexuality

[www.100questionsforthegirlscouts.org]

Girl Scouts and the Media

[www.100questionsforthegirlscouts.org]

The Girl Scouts and Radical Feminism

[www.100questionsforthegirlscouts.org]

Girl Scouts and the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender (LGBT) Agenda

[www.100questionsforthegirlscouts.org]

*********

“[W]hile it’s true that the Scouts say they take no official position on birth control and abortion, it’s what they do that’s a problem. Numerous sources — including former Girl Scouts, Scout leaders, and pro-life leaders — have documented hundreds of examples of the Girl Scouts promoting pro-abortion and LGBT resources, recommending sexually explicit books and movies, highlighting pro-abortion leaders and lesbians as role models, partnering with LGBT and pro-abortion activist groups, including Planned Parenthood, and referring girls to pro-abortion organizations to learn about ‘advocacy’ (a pet word in the new Girl Scouts).”

... and emasculated the Boy Scouts -

Does the Boy Scouts' acceptance of girls mean the end of men?

[www.washingtonexaminer.com]

The Boy Scouts announced Wednesday they will let girls into the Cub Scouts in a bid to "evolve how our programs meet the needs of families interested in positive and lifelong experiences for their children." As benign as this may seem — after all, it's just camping and knife skills, right? — few things demonstrate societal goals more than the choices we make regarding our youngest generation: from education and child care to parenting and community, what we show and teach our young people reflect societal values at large.

This decision is not only indicative of the toxic hold third-wave feminism has on large organizations and the people who run them, but demonstrative of a consolidated effort to eradicate the influence of boys and men on society. Simply put, it's not enough to emasculate men or categorize them as predators or toxic, now we must equate them with girls in order to remove gender differences, and eventually men, altogether.

I can think of few other factions of American society that have as much sway as the third wave of feminists who believe it's not enough that women enjoy equality under the law and equal opportunity in the workplace, but they must be a force in all aspects of society simply because of their gender. This is not only contrary to what feminists of yore hoped to achieve — equality due to personhood, gender notwithstanding — but is quite harmful today. Women should be involved in organizations either based on merit, or in this particular case, not at all, simply because they fail to meet the correct criteria or qualifications (in this case, the right gender).

The Boy Scout decision seeks first to remove gender differences

Many other progressive groups continue to push the idea that there are few noted differences between boys and girls, so why should they learn and play in separate organizations?

If there are few, if any, measurable differences between boys and girls, surely they don't need separate clubs or organizations. This is both false and wrongheaded. There are countless differences between the sexes which should be recognized and celebrated, and which are hardly a detriment to society, but often a boon. As a mother of four kids — two boys and two girls — I've seen this repeatedly in my family; I hate to see propaganda force biology to be disregarded or abused in either case.

Boy Scout decision teaches young people to devalue boys

If a society which has been warning the end of men is near for decades decided to slowly devalue men to the point of extinction, where would it start? Certainly not in politics or the private sector but in school, when kids are malleable. Colleges have been touting that masculinity is toxic, and Generation X and the millennials already believe men should be obsolete, so it's no surprise they'd stoop to school-age children to inform them there are no differences between boys and girls and in fact, boys aren't all that important. Certainly not enough to keep their own club.

The Boy Scouts aren't just allowing girls into their clubs, they're barring boys from having their own boys club, removing an essential aspect of boys' development, including emotional maturity, self-confidence, and self-awareness. This will further evolve into boys feeling they must either conform to act like girls — even though the Boy Scouts promised the male and female "dens" would be separate — or slowly lose value as their own entity altogether. Either (or both) results are damaging for boys' self-esteem as it affects the men they will later become — and as such, how they will further influence society at large as adults.

It's disappointing to see an all-male organization, tasked with helping capable boys become strong, independent adults, succumb to the pressure of feminists which seeks to neutralize gender differences and devalue boys and men altogether.

Geez, now Lib women won't let kids have a best friend...

Schools Attempt to Ban Kids from Having ‘Best Friends’ because It’s Not Inclusive

[www.nationalreview.com]

Social engineers and language police won’t change human nature: We all like some people much more than others.

According to a piece in U.S. News and World Report, some schools in the United States and Europe “are attempting to ban the entire concept of children having best friends,” because it’s not inclusive and kids get hurt.

`Writing in US News, child and family psychologist Dr. Barbara Greenberg says “there is something dreadfully exclusionary” about the concept of a “best friend,” and notes some American and European schools already forbid kids from having them.

Christine Hartwell told Fox 25 she noticed her daughter Julia acting strange when she came home from her Pentucket Workshop Preschool one day. When she asked what was wrong, the 4-year-old told her "she was really sad about what her teacher did that day," Hartwell told the station.

Julia told her mom she had been reprimanded for calling someone her best friend and told not to use the term again.

[www.miamiherald.com]

"(Julia) said you know so-and-so, you're my best buddy," Hartwell, told WBZ-TV. "The teacher told her that she couldn't say that there in school."

The school did not comment to the Associated Press, Washington Post or other outlets about whether such a ban was official policy, but Hartwell told Fox 25 she received a letter from the school's director.

The mindless attack on letting kids have ‘best friends’

[nypost.com]

The redcoats are coming — for your kid’s best friend.

Americans love reading how Europeans are superior parents. We read the books, whether it’s “Bringing Up Bébé: One American Mother Discovers the Wisdom of French Parenting” in 2012 or, out this month, “Achtung Baby: An American Mom on the German Art of Raising Self-Reliant Children,” and believe the hype. So when news broke that Prince George, the eldest son of Prince William and Duchess Kate, goes to a school that bans best friends — well, there was only one thing to do.

Our schools began to ban best friends, too. Most parents know that schools have been doing this informally for some time, but psychologist Barbara Greenberg caused a stir with a recent piece in US News & World Report, noting that she sees a trend of American schools implementing an actual ban.

It’s not just about the folly of trying to shield kids from theoretical emotional distress. The best-friend ban shields children from actual joy. In the backlash to Greenberg’s piece, people argued the benefits of best-friendship. On Fox’s “Tucker Carlson Tonight,” psychotherapist Nell Daly cited a University of Virginia study that found that kids who have a best friend growing up have “less social anxiety” and better mental health.

But there’s a good case to be made that even debating the relative merits is a concession to nanny-staters they don’t deserve.

Social scientists, who are certain the world would be a better place if everyone just does what they say – are telling us that schools and parents should ban children from having best friends.

Rather, they say, schools should ban kids from having “best friends” and should instead encourage them to have a small group of close-knit friends.

Another Fake News Story about another Lib Woman being a bitch and spinning, twisting and lying about took place and the context of what was said -

Student presents thesis in underwear after professor says her 'shorts are too short'

[www.yahoo.com]

A student has stripped down to her bra and underwear during her thesis presentation in protest against her professor's comments that her choice of clothing was inappropriate.

Letitia Chai, a senior student at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, took off her clothes during her presentation, which was filmed on Facebook live, to stand up against "oppressive beliefs and discrimination".

Ms Chai organised the protest after her teacher allegedly questioned her choice of clothing during a test run of her thesis presentation and told her: "Your shorts are too short".

Describing the incident in a Facebook post, Chai wrote: "She proceeded to tell me in front of my whole class that I was inviting the male gaze away from the content of my presentation and onto my body."

"I think that I was so taken aback that I didn't really know how to respond," she told the Cornell Sun.

Ms Chai said that some students in the class were also surprised by the teacher's comment but one international student agreed with the teacher and told her she had "a moral obligation to dress more conservatively" in respect for her audience.

"Needless to say, I was shook," Ms Chai wrote.

After she left the classroom, her teacher came out to talk to her and according to Ms Chai, she asked her what her mother would think of her outfit.

"What would my mom think? My mom is a feminist, gender, sexuality studies professor. She has dedicated her life to the empowerment of people in all gender identities. So, I think my mother would [be] fine with my shorts," she wrote.

When asked what she was going to do, Ms Chai replied: "I'm going to give the best damn speech of my life."

Writing on Facebook, Ms Chai invited others to support her on the day of her actual presentation and asked people to "strip down" to their underwear with her during her 15-minute address.

The event was filmed on Facebook Live as Ms Chai removed her clothes and some of the students in the room joined her in support.

She told the audience of several dozens that this was a call for "solidarity" with students like her who had been asked to "question themselves about their appearances for the comfort of others".

(Above part of the article is the Fake News Story where the student lied about the teacher, what the teacher actually said, in what context, and the events)

*********

(Below is the second part of the story which is the real news story of the teacher and classmates stating that this Lib Woman student lied and misrepresented what really went down. )

The teacher involved told local media: "I do not tell my students what to wear, nor do I define for them what constitutes appropriate dress. I ask them to reflect for themselves and make their own decisions."

Following the incident, 11 of the 13 other students in the class issued a statement saying they "supported Ms Chai's commitment to the cause of women's rights" but did not agree with her recollection of the events.

"All of us feel that out professor's words and actions were unfairly represented in the post, with certain quotes taken out of context and we wish to clarify any misunderstandings that may have occurred," they said.

The students described their teacher as an "outstanding member" of the university and "a gift to Cornell".

"In an environment like Cornell, where it is so easy to feel dismissed by both your peers and higher-ups, she is unparalleled in her support of us," the statement read.

*******

She lied about the context of her interaction with the teacher and besmirched the character of the professor to push her and her mother's Lib Agenda.

(Also she's fat and ugly. Is she pregnant or something...)

********

This is what really happened -

"Ms Chai does not tell the whole story. The students were asked to consider appearance, demeanor and attitude as part of their Thesis presentation, and it was suggested to dress as one would for a job interview. The teacher asked Ms Chai if this is how she would dress for a job interview, and then further clarified that she felt the "short shorts" would be a distraction. Ms Chai is, of course, welcome to dress as she pleases, but would likely not get many job offers. She should also tell the whole story if she is so sure of her handling of the situation."

********

This is the best comment -

It speaks volumes that 11 of 13 students in the class issued a statement saying they did not agree with Ms Chai's recollection of the events and felt their professor's word's and actions were unfairly represented. They describe their teacher as "a gift to Cornell." Congratulations, Ms Chai, it takes a special individual to alienate nearly her entire class.

Yes

It is true that the news about people firing their guns in self defense are real non-lib news.

And the other news are fake lib news.

Just like there is God and there is Satan.

Just like there is day and night.

Just like there is good and evil.

Good & Evil are two faces of the ONE LIGHT. Darkness, Evil, Satan are merely the ABSENCE of LIGHT. Pick a side and you've already lost as Jennifer amply proves above...

Today's Culture - Brought to you by the Libs -

This is an outrage - teaching children about homosexuality and gay marriage.

The Wholesale Indoctrination of School Children by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC)

[canadafreepress.com]

"When little school kids talk about what they are learning in class, it’s no longer about anything to do concerning the ‘Three Rs’, it’s about the Politics of Inclusion, which they learn through indoctrination.

“I believe in education and tolerance and celebration of diversity.”

It’s easy to see that the children in the video have been indoctrinated, rather than educated and that they can spout gay talking points as well, or better than, any adult gay activist.

Do school kids of the current day really sit around talking about gay marriage being normal? Do they really aspire to “grow up and be gay icons”?

Whatever happened to wanting to grow up to be astronauts, scientists, or even Dads or Moms?

Cruickshank, who touted Jodi Foster as her growing up role model told the kids, “She made me question my sexuality as a child because I liked her so much.”

“She was nude in the film, ‘Nell’, not that I remember watching several times.”

While Foster was Cruickshank’s growing up model, she told the children in the CBC Gay Pride video “everybody should aspire to grow up and be a gay icon”.

Because CBC is a state-owned television network, taxpayer-subsidized to the tune of $1 billion a year, parents paid for the Cruickshank video.

If there’s anything from which the children of the day need to be set free, it’s from flagrant indoctrinators like phoney tolerance and diversity activist Jessi Cruickshank, who seems not to want to let children be children.

Parents, only YOU can set your children free from classroom indoctrination."

Interesting article on the Emasculation of the Boy Scouts - it took 100 years, but the Libs finally succeeded -

The Marxist Progressive War on the Boy Scouts

[spectator.org]

Today’s progressives have completed the takeover and destruction communists first started calling for more than a century ago.

The left has succeeded in driving a final nail in the coffin of the Boy Scouts as it once was. The organization is now a shell of its self. It capitulated first on “gay” scout leaders, then on “transgender” scouts, and now on girls joining the Boy Scouts.

Progressives bask in their triumph, dancing on the grave of an organization they never wanted to build up; it was an organization they wanted to take down. For the left, this is less about giving something to girls than taking something from boys. It’s another scalp on the cultural-ideological wall.

Lest anyone think this isn’t a take-down, or a fundamental transformation, well, consider that the Boy Scouts of America, founded in 1910, will now be called simply “Scouts BSA” for those ages 11 to 18 (a change openly celebrated with puffy propaganda pieces by PC-stylists at the BSA website). This is a coerced inclusion of gender-neutral “Cub Scouts.”

The Boy Scouts have been emasculated, neutered. The organization that prided itself on courage stands impotent, fearful in the face of feminists and LGBTQ militants. They’ve cowered to the forces of “diversity” and “tolerance.”

And for cultural revolutionaries, the defeat of the Boy Scouts is the end of a long march through yet another institution. This march began literally a century ago not with the New York Times or Democrats but with socialists and communists.

(Explanation in the article)

There in one piece, in 2017, is a summary list of communist attacks in a protracted ideological war against the Boy Scouts. It took a century, but the Marxists and socialists finally got them. They needed the help of the wider left, especially the thorough re-education in the universities. It took the wider liberal left some time to warm to the cause, but eventually liberals/progressives got there. As they typically do.

It may take a hundred years sometimes, but progressives eventually make their progress. And their latest victory is their fundamental transformation of the Boy Scouts of America.

************

Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College. His books include A Pope and a President: John Paul II, Ronald Reagan, and the Extraordinary Untold Story of the 20thCentury; Dupes: How America’s Adversaries Have Manipulated Progressives for a Century; and The Politically Incorrect Guide to Communism.

This is disgusting that "White Privilege" "Male Toxicity" "Rape Culture" and a lot of the other stupid Lib Concepts have become a thing, taught in college and probably public school by now, accepted as the truth, common knowledge.

The Lib Women! Because they hate white people, hate men, especially old white men. Sickening!

Chelsea Handler Working On ‘Funny’ Netflix Series About White Privilege

[www.dailywire.com]