WALSH: ‘Gender Neutral Parenting’ Is Child Abuse

NBC reports on a parenting trend with a name as stupid as the thing itself: “theybies.” This is the designation certain upper-class, white, liberal parents have given to their children, whom they have decided to raise without “gender labels.”

The NBC article focuses on Nate and Julia Sharpe, parents of Zyler and Kadyn Sharpe. The biological sex of Zyler and Kadyn has been hidden from everyone, including Zyler and Kadyn themselves. They are aware of their own body parts, but they have not been told what those parts mean. They do not know their own identities. Nate and Julia will keep that secret under lock and key until the children are old enough to decide for themselves. They will reach this magical age sometime around four or five, apparently. They will not yet have reached the age where they are old enough to make themselves a peanut butter and jelly sandwich, but they will be old enough to decide their own gender.

Of course, we run into some logical problems here. There are approximately 6,782 logical problems, actually, but let’s mention just a few: If biological sex is meaningless and gender is a social construct, what does it mean to “choose” a gender? You just said gender is something arbitrary and invented. If a boy chooses to be a girl based on his affinity for girly things, has he not made this decision based on the very construct that you are trying to abolish? And if he makes the decision based on nothing at all, then hasn’t the word “girl” just become another word for “boy”? If “girl” and “boy” have no meaning then you cannot choose to be one or the other. If they do have meaning, then the choice must be based on something objective. You can’t have it both ways.

 

https://www.dailywire.com/news/33418/walsh-gender-neutral-parenting-child-abuse-matt-walsh

Masculine Dads Raise Confident Daughters By Abigail Shrier

From The Wall Street Journal

July 20, 2018 6:39 p.m. ET

The summer I graduated from college, I joined my father one Saturday night at his favorite hangout, Borders Books. Much to my brother’s and my embarrassment, our father treated it like a library. He would seat himself at a table with a muffin in one hand, a stack of books fanned out in front of him, and no intention of leaving within the hour. An amateur singer was torturing a guitar somewhere in the building; tinny strains filtered down to the cafe where we sat.

“You hear that?” I teased. “If you had given me just a little more encouragement with the guitar, that could be me right now.”

He looked up from his book. “That’s right,” he said, his voice gathering in a growl. “I didn’t support it! That’s why my kid’s on her way to graduate school, and that guy’s singing in a Borders!”

My father never hid that he had high expectations of me, for which my tuneless, lackluster attempts with guitar proved pitifully inadequate. He admired smarts less than grit, found surface beauty less enchanting than charm. The woman he admired most was our mother, not for her intelligence or accomplishments, though she had plenty of both, but because of a strength that took his breath away and on which he often relied.

His example has been on my mind these days with all this talk about “toxic masculinity” and the proper ways to raise boys so that they don’t become sexual predators. A recent New York Times article about how to raise good boys in the “#MeToo Era” cites psychologist Peter Glick, who advises parents to challenge the prevailing norms of masculinity with our sons, refraining from using terms like “man up” and—crucially—ending all teaching of chivalry: “We need to stop socializing boys to see women as needing protection.”

So many seem to believe that if we can remake boys as feminists—by which they seem to mean boys who check their male privilege, are unafraid to cry, and are politically progressive—we will have largely solved the problem of sexual harassment. A glance at the public figures felled in the #MeToo purges—not to mention Bill Clinton —should cure us of the idea that progressive politics incline men to better treatment of women.

Masculinity, like femininity, is neither inherently good nor bad. Enormous damage can be inflicted by the sorts of malice we associate with girls: spreading rumors, convincing someone’s friends to turn against her, refusing to acknowledge someone purportedly beneath notice. Femininity and masculinity are manners of comportment and modi operandi; they are not codes of conduct. Men have used masculinity for acts of heroism and decency. That they have also applied it to despicable behavior says nothing of masculinity itself.

My father’s own unapologetic masculinity made us feel secure. It made itself known in the shuffle of his loafers against our linoleum floor, the rumble of his voice, the two-fingered whistle whose sharpness both impressed and alarmed. And yes, he has held plenty of doors. The notion that this signified anything other than courtesy could never persuade me, since its origin, for me, was with him.

There is something regrettable in the way our exclusive focus on boys and men lets young women off the hook. As if women bear no responsibility for their own behavior. As if they are too weak, too emotional, too foolish ever to take care of themselves.

And that is the greatest disappointment of the #MeToo movement, that it has so spectacularly refused to insist that a woman not allow any man to treat her badly. Failed to insist that young women have an individual responsibility to demand better. That they should all agree no job is worth more than their dignity.

My own #MeToo moment came when a professor I hoped would help me launch an academic career asked me to meet him at a hotel. After eight hours of panic, I turned him down. Not because my mother had taught me never to accept such invitations, though she had. Not because feminism instructed that I should use only my intellect to promote my advancement. But because I knew that had I accepted, it would kill my father. To say yes would have irredeemably let him down.

This is a piece of the #MeToo problem rarely discussed: how to raise our daughters so that they possess a hard nugget of faith in their worth, something they are unwilling to dislodge, whatever the price.

There is a scene in the 2017 movie “Molly’s Game,” in which poker impresario Molly Bloom, played by Jessica Chastain, is sitting in the office of her defense attorney, played by Idris Elba. The lawyer has a daughter of his own, Stella, a lovely and talented high-school student whom he burdens with extra homework and lofty expectations. The lawyer turns to Molly and asks: “Do you think I’m being too hard on her?”

Molly replies: “I met a girl when I first moved to L.A. She was 22. Someone arranged through a third party to spend the weekend with her in London. Do you know what she got? . . . A bag. A Chanel bag she wanted.” That was all the girl had traded herself for. “Whatever you’re doing with Stella,” Molly advises, “double it.”

In demanding a lot from his daughter, in other words, the lawyer was teaching her that she was worth a lot too. In life, this would be her best defense.

My father never let me get away with self-pity. Never allowed me to win an argument with tears. He regarded unbridled emotion in place of reason as vaguely pathetic; if I had any chance of prevailing in a discussion, the first thing I needed to do was calm down.

And when young men didn’t like me or were poised to treat me badly, it was my father’s regard that I found myself consulting and relying upon. When a man tries to mistreat a woman—I’m not talking about violence, but the instinct to convey to her that she isn’t worth very much—he is unlikely to get very far with a woman whose father has made her feel that she’s worth a whole lot.

We spend so much time obsessing over inequalities in society. But there is arguably no inequality more unjust or difficult to overcome than that of parentage. We don’t get the parents we deserve, and those of us blessed with good ones wouldn’t trade them for any other unearned privilege. If you want to protect girls, find them good parents, or become them. Dads, whatever you’re doing for your daughters—double it.

Ms. Shrier is a writer living in Los Angeles.

Morbidly obese feminist poses in bikini in Times Square, then complains of being objectified

An important concept in feminism is the “objectification” of women — dehumanizing a woman by treating her as a commodity or object of sexual desire, without regard to her personhood or dignity.

A morbidly obese feminist named Anna O’Brien objectifies herself by posing in a bikini in New York’s Times Square. Then she complains that she is being objectified.

Amanda Prestigiacomo reports for The Daily Wire that on July 2, 2018, feminist activist and author Anna O’Brien decided to strip down to a bikini and pose in the middle of busy Times Square to prove . . . . “Well, the purpose of the stunt isn’t entirely clear,” but now O’Brien is fiery mad because some men in Times Square sexually objectified her.

O’Brien (@glitterandlazers) wrote in an Instagram post:

“Yesterday I did the scariest thing I have done in my 30+ years…. I stood in times square in a bikini and posed for a photo shoot. In the beginning I felt really overwhelmed. Not because I was mocked, but because I was so extremely sexualized by a few men who were watching.”

 

https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2018/07/20/morbidly-obese-feminist-poses-in-bikini-in-times-square-then-complains-of-being-objectified/

Man Deliberately Kicks His Unborn Baby to Death, “I Didn’t Want to Hurt Her, Just the Baby”

A man in Birmingham, Alabama is on trial after being accused of beating his 37 week pregnant ex-girlfriend and killing her unborn child.

31 year old Christopher Ammons Kemp deliberately killed his unborn daughter in a vicious attack on Jessica Jackson, the court heard. Ms Jackson was left seriously injured, but her baby died from injuries including lacerated organs, displaced ribs, fractured bones, and a fractured skull, prosecutors said on Tuesday.

Devastating injuries

Kemp is said to have targeted the baby after Ms Jackson finished their relationship, and told him she did not want his name on the birth certificate, or for the little girl to have his surname.

Ms Jackson kicked Kemp out of the house for the final time in January 2016, and by March, several incidents had left her too scared to be there alone. On March 16, she went home intending to pack a bag and leave, but Kemp was in the garage. Jefferson County Deputy District Attorney Neil Zarzour told the court that Kemp knocked her to the ground and began choking her.

Her ex-husband (who she had recently become friends with again) was worried when she didn’t answer his calls, and drove round to find her “frantic” and covered in blood. He rushed her to hospital where doctors performed emergency surgery and the baby girl was pronounced dead. Zarzour said the medical examiner who performed the autopsy on the baby’s body described her injuries as “devastating.” Ms Jackson was left in a coma for two days.

Admits guilt

After the attack, Kemp allegedly sent a friend a facebook message saying “I didn’t want to hurt her, just the baby.”

Kemp turned himself in after admitting what he had done to his parents. Police found an aluminium bat at their house which they believe was used in the attack.

Kemp’s lawyer said he accepts that “he is responsible for his conduct that day. He caused injury to Jessica [Jackson], he caused injury to his unborn child.” However, he says that the attack was not premeditated, and that his client was high on Xanax both during the attack and when he sent the message, which “is not a reflection of what he meant.”

Unborn children protected by Alabama law

Unlike in California, where a couple were recently accused of beating their unborn baby to death, Alabama’s homicide laws protect unborn children. According to Alabama Code 13A-6-1, the term “person,” when referring to the victim of a criminal homicide or assault, means a human being, including a child in utero at any stage of development, regardless of viability. If Kemp is found guilty of capital murder, as well as of burglary and first-degree domestic violence, he could face the death penalty.

What would  happen in the UK?

In the UK the Infant Life Preservation Act (1929) created the offence of ‘child destruction’ which carries a life sentence: “any person who, with intent to destroy the life of a child capable of being born alive, by any wilful act causes a child to die before it has an existence independent of its mother, shall be guilty of felony, to wit, of child destruction.” Yet very few are ever convicted of child destruction, not least because the child must be sufficiently developed, and legal abortion does not come under the offence of child destruction.

A very distressing UK case in which the baby’s father attacked the mother to kill the baby after she refused an abortion has prompted calls to increase sanctions when someone other than the mother forcibly induces an abortion.

http://www.lifenews.com/2018/07/19/man-deliberately-kicks-his-unborn-baby-to-death-i-didnt-want-to-hurt-her-just-the-baby/