Feminist Indoctrination for 4th Graders

Bloggers and commenters in the “progressive” feminist blogosphere were almost giddy with excitement last week over a young woman’s proposal to bring feminism into the elementary school curriculum. I’m all for making sure women’s historical contributions are well represented in school curricula, but controversial ideologies that promote far left ideas like “social justice” have no place in public schools.

Here’s what I wrote at NewsReal:

In 2009, Ileana Jiménez asked her class of high school juniors and seniors to write letters to President Obama about “the ways in which feminism might be addressed in the curriculum.” Earlier this week she shared one letter on her blog, Feminist Teacher.

It is understandable that teachers cannot be expected to cram decades of struggles into 12 years of study. I just feel that there should be more time in the curriculum starting in the lower grades (if they can learn about the slave trade, they can learn about feminism) dedicated to learning about feminism and the goals behind it.

To do that, I propose that by fourth grade, students be exposed to basic feminist ideas.

Note that the student’s interest isn’t in ensuring that women’s experiences are adequately represented in history texts. She’s proposing the indoctrination of nine-year-old children into a political movement.

She doesn’t define “basic feminist ideas,” but here’s a list of the top priorities of a representative feminist group, the National Organization for Women:

abortion rights/reproductive issues

violence against women

constitutional equality

promoting diversity/ending racism

lesbian rights

economic justice

How many of those “basic feminist ideas” would you teach to a fourth grader?

Visit NewsReal to read the rest of my thoughts on this kid’s letter.

February 14, 2010 · Filed Under Education, Feminism, Liberal Absurdity, Women

Comment

Genius Idea of the Month: Reparations for Planned Parenthood

Did you know that Planned Parenthood was deeply wronged when CBS chose to air the pro-life Super Bowl ad featuring Tim Tebow and his mom? That’s what one editor at The Nation thinks.

From my article at NewsReal earlier this week:

Incensed by the completely innocuous Tim Tebow Super Bowl commercial, sports editor Dave Zirin blogged his fury at The Nation yesterday. He admits the ad was “about as vanilla as an Andy Williams Christmas Special.” But it’s not the actual content of the ad that angers Zirin.

It’s the pesky free speech.

He’s infuriated that CBS would even consider offering a platform to Focus on the Family, an organization Zirin says has “shadowy connections to to open hate groups.” He believes allowing Focus on the Family to pay for “this kind of a mammoth public forum is an absolute disgrace.”

So what’s his solution?

Zirin insists CBS execs should have to make amends for their complicity in advancing the pro-life agenda. “They should offer free commercial time to Planned Parenthood,” he proposes.

Please visit NewsReal to read the rest.

February 12, 2010 · Filed Under Abortion, Liberal Absurdity

Comment

When Can You Call a Woman Masculine?

My latest article at NewsReal looks at when it’s okay to question a woman’s femininity. Check out the double standard:

Last week, noted feminist Keith Olbermann implied that the women of Fox News are only hired because they’re attractive. In response, The Daily Caller’s Jim Treacher posted a photo gallery of women who work for MSNBC. When he got to Rachel Maddow, Treacher wrote, “Whoops, how did that one get in there? Sorry, man. I mean dude. I mean Rachel! Sorry, Rachel.”

Similar jokes have appeared in a column by Treacher’s colleague Matt Labash, prompting a writer at Jezebel to lecture “Tucker Carlson’s minions” that they must never, ever suggest that a woman looks masculine in appearance.

Making fun of women for looking or acting mannish is a time-honored way of belittling them, of trying to keep women out of both men’s clothes and men’s roles, and just because the woman in question is an out lesbian doesn’t mean jokes about her aren’t part of this misogynist tradition.

But if a Jezebel writer wants to insult Ann Coulter’s femininity? Oh, that’s totally cool:

Ann Coulter Finally Explains What’s Behind That Adam’s Apple

Please visit NewsReal to read the rest.

February 8, 2010 · Filed Under Feminism, Liberal Absurdity, Women

1 Comment

Live Mocking the State of the Union Address

I’ll be tweeting the State of the Union address tonight. Please follow along on Twitter and help me mock President Obama’s attempts to win back the public trust by blaming Booooosh!!!!

Oh, and do yourself a favor: don’t play any of the State of the Union drinking games that require you to take a drink every time President AllAboutMe says “I” or “me.” Your liver will thank you.

January 27, 2010 · Filed Under Barack Obama, Liberal Absurdity

Comment

Jon Stewart Doesn’t Need a Weatherman

He knows exactly which way the wind blows.

The result? Comedy gold as Jon Stewart rips Keith Olbermann to shreds over his bizarre rants against Scott Brown. Man, I love me some hot blue-on-blue action. Seriously, watch the whole thing.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart

Mon – Thurs 11p / 10c

Special Comment – Keith Olbermann’s Name-Calling

www.thedailyshow.com

Daily Show
Full Episodes

Political Humor

Health Care Crisis

h/t Lori Ziganto

January 22, 2010 · Filed Under Distractions, Liberal Absurdity

Comment

Martha Coakley: Victim of the Patriarchy?

My piece at NewsReal today examines the inclination of some feminist writers to immediately blame sexism for Martha Coakley’s loss to Scott Brown.

There are facts, and then there are feminist facts. Here’s an example:

Fact: Scott Brown is a white male who drives a pickup truck and won the Massachusetts special election.

Feminist fact: Scott Brown won the Massachusetts special election because he’s a white male who drives a pickup truck.

Can’t you picture the GMC warning labels? Caution: you’re driving a tool of the phallocracy.

You can read the rest at NewsReal.

Boiling the entire Coakley/Brown race down to gender bias is not only shallow, disingenuous political analysis, but it deprives women candidates of the ability to sink or swim on their own merits. Of course, that hasn’t stopped others from piling on with variations on the sexism theme.

In addition to the examples cited in my NewsReal piece, a POLITICO article about the “impenetrable” glass ceiling in Massachusetts decried “how mind-bending the gender dynamics in this campaign were.” And in The Daily Beast, James Carroll wrote that “Martha Coakley was croaked by an electorate that could not get past her gender” in “Misogynist Massachusetts.”

When gender disparity is your bread and butter, that’s what an election post-mortem looks like. So I was pleasantly surprised to see a smarter, saner analysis of Coakley’s loss at Salon’s Broadsheet:

But, as a lefty feminist, I’m calling B.S. It isn’t so simple, and suggesting otherwise is dangerous.

It takes willful blindness to argue that Coakley’s loss was chiefly the result of anything other than a crappy campaign.

Clearly Coakley didn’t lose because she was the female candidate. But her crappy campaign wasn’t the biggest factor either. She lost because she represented everything the majority of Massachusetts residents detest about the Democrats’ agenda. And she lost because immoral, politically motivated decisions she made as a prosecutor came back to haunt her.

So does Massachusetts have a problem electing women to office?

The Commonwealth ranks 18th in electing women to positions in the state legislature. That leaves room for improvement, but it hardly merits the “Misogynist Massachusetts” slur. And crying sexism because the better man wasn’t a woman is simply counterproductive.

January 21, 2010 · Filed Under Conservatism, Feminism, Liberal Absurdity, Women

3 Comments

← Previous Page — Next Page →