Friday, February 12, 2016
One of my Australian correspondents who works as a counsellor shares the following experience
Over many years of working amongst severe feminists I have occasionally had false accusations or insinuations made of me, and seen other men accused too, some having their careers ruined.
Most accusations occur after a disagreement or having to correct or reprimand a feminist, to which her common response is to falsely claim she was physically intimidated or threated. Men prefer to be corrected privately, and so do sensible women, and I always do that, but I have learnt to always correct feminists and hung-up women in front of sensible women. Of course then the feminist complains she is being humiliated in front of others, but that's better than me being accused of threatening violence.
The most comical incident was once when reaching out to a clock-on-card and a nurse beside me leapt in front of me and ran her neck straight into my extended arm, pushing her throat into the crook of my elbow and instantly grabbing my arm and wrapping it around her neck as if she was being choked. She even made choking noises. I freed my arm and stepped back.
She pretended to stagger a bit, clutched her throat and gave me a filthy look as if I had just tried to kill her. Then just as suddenly she straightened up and strutted off down the corridor doing her best assertive feminist walk and went off to work her shift. I never heard anything further about the incident, and although I recorded it for my own record, I did not report it. It was as if an irresistible impulse had momentarily overcome her.
Needless to say I was very careful around her after that. As an amusing follow up, a year or two later I was coming out of an Art Gallery having just seen a historical military display. She was standing outside looking very uptight and sour indeed. I said hello and asked her if she was here to see the display. With a sneer she said her husband was viewing the display, then with an air of snotty superiority added that she was "not into violence".
Activists push taxpayer-funded homosexual manual in schools
Eleven-year-old children are being taught about sexual orientation and transgender issues at school in a taxpayer-funded program written by gay activists.
The Safe Schools Coalition teaching manual says that asking parents if their baby is a boy or a girl reinforces a "heteronormative world view".
Religious groups yesterday criticised the "age-inappropriate" manual, which suggests that sexuality be raised in every subject area. "Whatever the subject, try to work out ways to integrate gender diversity and sexual diversity across your curriculum," the manual says.
The All of Us teaching manual, designed for Years 7 and 8, says that children often realise they are lesbian, gay or bisexual between the ages of 11 and 14, while the -average age for "coming out" is 16.
A lesson plan on "bisexual -experiences" requires students to imagine they live in a world "where having teeth is considered really unpleasant". Students take turns telling a classmate about their weekend, without showing their teeth.
"How did it feel to have to hide part of yourself?" the students are asked. "Do you think that some lesbian, gay or bisexual young people feel that they need to hide part of themselves? How might this make them feel?"
Children are shown short films about the personal stories of young lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) people.
In a lesson on same-sex attraction, students as young as 11 are told to imagine they are 16-year-olds who are "going out with someone they are really into". The class is divided into students pretending to be going out with someone of the same sex, and classmates pretending to like someone of the opposite sex.
The children have to answer 10 questions, including whether they could "easily talk to your parents about your sexuality", and to name four famous Australians of the same sexuality.
The teacher then instructs the children to stand, and slowly counts backwards from 10. Each child can sit down when the number called out by the teacher corresponds with the number of times they answered "yes" in the quiz - meaning that a student who answers "no" could be left standing in front of the class.
The Safe Schools manual -appears to reach beyond promoting tolerance, to advocating activism by students. It tells students to defy teachers who refuse to let them put up LGBTI posters.
"If you can, it's a good idea to get permission to put your posters up, so you avoid getting in -trouble," the manual says. "If your school or teachers say no, ask for reasons and see if they make sense. If they don't seem reasonable, you may have to be creative about where you place them."
Safe Schools also advises -students to "use your assignments to start conversations".
"For example, some students have chosen to do their English oral presentations on equal marriage rights or their music or art assignments on how artists express their sexuality, gender or intersex status through their work," it says.
The Safe Schools Coalition suggests that schools paint a rainbow crossing, provide unisex toilets and hand out stickers to supportive teachers.
The federal government has provided $8 million in funding for the program, which has won support from the Australian Secondary Principals Association, beyondblue, headspace and the Australian Education Union. The Victorian government will require all state schools to join the Safe Schools network by 2018, but the program is voluntary in other states and territories.
So far 490 primary and high schools nationally have signed up, although the list of 24 schools in Queensland is secret.
Federal Education Minister Simon Birmingham said the Safe Schools program was an "opt-in" for schools and run at arm's length from government.
"Homophobia should be no more tolerated than racism, especially in the school environment," Senator Birmingham said. "The resource is intended to support the right of all students, staff and families to feel safe at school."
A La Trobe University study of more than 3000 same-sex-attracted young people in 2010 found that 75 per cent had experienced some form of homophobic bullying or abuse - with 80 per cent of those occurring at school.
Australian Christian Lobby spokeswoman Wendy Francis said the Safe Schools material pressured kids into accepting LGBTI concepts and "confuses them about their own identity".
She said forcing students to imagine themselves in a same-sex relationship was a "form of cultural bullying".
Ms Francis said the material was not age-appropriate, as 11-year-old children were too young to be taught about sexual orientation and transgender issues. "A lot of children are still pretty innocent about this stuff - these are adult concepts," she said.
Ms Francis agreed that bullying against LGBTI students "absolutely has to be stopped".
"Every child should be safe at school," she said.
Safe Schools Coalition national director Sally Richardson said students at safe and supportive schools did better academically and were less likely to suffer poor mental health. "Our resources are designed to provide teachers with tools to help them have conversations with students around inclusion and diversity in the community," Ms Richardson said. "We provide schools with practical ways to foster a positive school culture where students, staff and families of all sexualities and gender identities feel safe, included and valued."
Ms Richardson said all the Safe Schools materials - including the All of Us teaching guide - were used at the discretion of individual schools.
The principal of Scotch College in Adelaide, John Newton, said his students had "embraced" the Safe Schools message of support and tolerance. But he did not approve of the lesson plan that required children to imagine themselves in a same-sex relationship. "That wouldn't be a method we'd use," Dr Newton said.
"It feels like a ham-fisted attempt to change a culture.
"Our children are well ahead of the issue and happy to talk about it - they seem to have a very mature approach."
Safe Schools is also used in Shenton College, an independent public school in Perth. "We strive to be a welcoming, progressive and inclusive public school," said principal Christopher Hill.
"We can't turn away from the fact that schools need to deal with these sorts of issues."
The Safe Schools guide cites statistics that 10 per cent of people are same-sex attracted, 1.7 per cent are intersex - born with both male and female features - and 4 per cent are transgender.
NOTE: The statistics above are, as usual, greatly exaggerated. Research conducted by the Australian Research Centre in Sex, Health and Society (ARCSHS) at La Trobe University in 2003, has shown that of the 20,000 people surveyed, about 1.2% of adults identify as homosexual (gay or lesbian). Among men, 1.6% identify as homosexual, and among women, 0.8% identify as lesbian, while 1.4% of women and 0.9% of men identify as bisexual
Mothers Speaking Out
As our culture continues to spiral down the septic tank, eventually that produces a backlash. After a while decent people have had enough, and start to stand against the sleaze, degradation and corruption of our culture. And when our children are especially being targeted and abused by the sexual libertines and social revolutionaries, then the reaction really starts to kick in.
There have always been concerned parents who have resisted the moral decay and radical agendas of the coercive utopians, but as things get worse, more voices begin to be heard. In the past day or two I have found three cases of incensed Australian mothers speaking out, declaring `enough is enough'.
All three mums have had a gutful of the sexualisation of their kids, and want no more of it. All three have fearlessly and resolutely spoken out against this evil, and have gotten media attention for doing so. So let me focus on each of these three brave women, and hold them up as examples for you to emulate.
The first is a Melbourne mother who is sick of pro-homosexual and gender-bending propaganda being rammed down the throats of her children. One article on this opens as follows:
"A website promoted by the Safe Schools Coalition is teaching students how to bind their breasts and "tuck in" male genitalia. The Minus 18 website, which is partially funded by the state government, gives step-by-step instructions on how to deal with "chest dysphoria" and includes seven different binding methods.
Mother of four Cella White withdrew her children from Frankston High over concerns about the Safe Schools Coalition program about transgender awareness. Ms White also expressed concerns about the website. "You are either born a boy or girl, I believe in mother nature, I want my kids to value their body, the breast binding is a real issue, we should be teaching kids to love themselves," she said..
The government-funded program by the Safe Schools Coalition is designed to promote inclusiveness for `same sex attracted, intersex and gender diverse' students, but critics say it is indoctrinating children in sexual identity politics under the pretence of a bullying program.
"It was announced in science class that boys could wear school dresses next year," Ms White said. "They're telling my children to call transgender children by their requested pronoun. What is the benefit to my son? He's got a learning disability, he's struggling with his times tables, he doesn't need to deal with this."
The mother of four was particularly concerned about any changes in bathroom policy that could see her daughter sharing a bathroom with a gender diverse student. "It could be a year 12 student of the opposite-born sex in the bathroom with my year 7 daughter who is blind," Ms White said. "This isn't about safe schools, it's transgenderism and gay activism bought into the classroom. I know other parents who are not happy.".
Ms White, who has complained to the education department and Safe Schools Coalition, said she is not religious but is coming forward to make other parents aware of "what their children are being taught. It's being presented as an anti-bullying program but the education department said it's a sexual diversity program," she said. "Apart from this I love the school, I'm in mourning, I went there, my siblings went there, I told everyone how good they were."
Another mother of four, this time from Perth, has also been battling this pernicious material for some time now. She was recently interviewed by the Australian but her comments did not make it into the newspaper article, so I asked Emily McKenna what she told the reporter. This is the gist of what she had said:
"With progressive minded parents in our school advocating for the "Safe School Coalition" and my four-year-old starting kindy with two children from two separate same-sex lesbian households, I knew that it would be a matter of time before my children would be bullied for our family's traditional marriage views.
The Safe Schools Coalition is being presented here in Western Australia by the AIDS Council. That information alone is alarming let alone the details taught in the "All of Us" booklet convincing children to force their bodies to stop growing as intended by nature.
Sharyn O'Neil, Director General at WA Education Department initially assured many prominent leaders here that the SSC would not go ahead in WA, however these minority groups don't like no for an answer and in October 2015 the classroom diversity plan was rolled out into 7 senior schools and one primary school. This was a matter of three months after I had met with her about politicising our children in the classroom with relation to the climate change agenda. She assured me personally that it wouldn't happen again.
After looking into our options as Christian parents, we have decided that our children's future education would be best taught and overseen by us at home. We want our children to get back to learning their ABC's and 123's, and not be indoctrinated in all the latest politically correct sexuality!"
Finally, a Queensland mother has gotten up in arms of the sexualisation of children as well. As a news item reports:
"Nikita Friedman was so angered by what she believed was inappropriate clothing being sold for young girls by Big W she took to social media to voice her outrage. "Why on earth does my 1-year-old need to have shorts so short that her nappy is hanging out? Little girls are not sex objects. Gender bias is disgusting," the Queensland mum wrote on the retail giant's Facebook page. "I couldn't find a single pair of shorts in the girl's section today with an inseam of more than a couple of centimetres. Where is the variety and choice for parents looking to teach their children about sun safety and self respect? Not at Big W this month, that's for sure!"
She also posted a photo comparing size one shorts for girls and boys, demonstrating the clear difference in length.
The post, which now appears to have been removed, received over 60,000 likes and 4,700 comments. Friedman edited her initial post to add that she believed it was important to let retailers know when customers are dissatisfied.
"The simple fact is that numbers talk and maybe seeing 1600 parents agree with my post after only 5 hours might make Big W stand up and listen for once to what parents want,' she wrote just five hours after she published the popular post," she wrote. The post attracted a lot of debate about whether the length of the shorts for boys and girls is an issue. Many parents jumped to support Friedman in the comments, with some congratulating her for taking a stand."
I am so glad that mothers are speaking out like this. They certainly should be. It is time to take a stand against all this sleaze, and the targeting of our children. We need many more concerned citizens to be raising their voices like this. If enough people speak out, things may begin to change.
Oh, and just one last question: when are we going to hear some fathers speaking out? Where are all the men? We need them to be a voice for our children as well.
CSIRO boss Larry Marshall sorry for saying politics of climate more like religion than science
Looks like he let his real opinion slip out
CSIRO chief Larry Marshall has apologised for describing the emotion of the climate debate as almost "more religion than science".
Dr Marshall had told the ABC the backlash from his decision to restructure the organisation made him feel like an "early climate scientist in the '70s fighting against the oil lobby" and that there was so much emotion in the debate it almost "sounded more like religion than science".
He also said he would not be backing down on his controversial shakeup of the organisation's climate divisions, telling the ABC he was yet to be persuaded.At Senate estimates this afternoon he backed away from those comments.
"I'd like to apologise for any offence I may have caused to anyone with respect to my reference to religion," Dr Marshall said. "I was merely referring to the passionate zeal around this issue, not any other reference, and I deeply apologise."
The redirection of climate science priorities at the CSIRO has drawn international condemnation, with thousands of climate scientists signing an open letter protesting against the changes.
The Oceans and Atmosphere division is expected to be one of the hardest hit, with 60 positions to go through a mix of redeployment and redundancies.All up, 350 jobs will "change" - a plan that has drawn the ire of an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change co-chair and even the World Meteorological Organisation which has made an unprecedented statement condemning the decision.
During the Senate estimates hearing Dr Marshall was quizzed about the backlash and was asked if he thought the international scientists were wrong."We're not saying that modelling and measurement are not important.
We're saying that modelling and measuring isn't more important than mitigation and we've chosen to shift our emphasis to mitigation," he said.
Sexist Labor party female gets a good reply
The spectre of the gender wars has been invoked in Senate estimates this morning after a line of questioning by new Labor senator Katy Gallagher resulted in a spat between her and government minister Mitch Fifield in which she accused him of "mansplaining".
Senator Gallagher was asking about the status of social security legislation the day after Malcolm Turnbull became Prime Minister and whether there was any change to the introduction of bills, with Senator Fifield explaining that these were matters for the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet.
The argument went on, with Senator Gallagher rephrasing the question a number of times.
"Thanks for the mansplaining," she said toward the end of the first session of Community Affairs estimates.
"Imagine if I said you were womansplaining," Senator Fifield said, before adding she was being "sexist".
Senator Gallagher said his answers had been "patronising and condescending".
"I thought we were having a good-hearted exchange, I just find it extraordinary that you or any senator at this table would seek to invoke gender in impugning how a senator is responding," Senator Fifield said. "Let the record show that Senator Gallagher thinks it is appropriate to refer to a senator as mansplaining.
"I am appalled, quite frankly. I am not endeavouring here to give a cabinet handbook description of the legislative process. Take a good look at yourself.
"If I said to a female senator you are womansplaining, stop being a hypocrite, conduct yourself appropriately for this place. Hypocrisy, thy name is Labor."
Senator Gallagher responded: "I think you need to settle down, really."
"Welcome to federal parliament," Senator Fifield said.
Senator Gallagher, incensed, said: "Oh, where the big people play? I'm not the one having a breakdown."
The session was called to order and the senators moved on to more sedate questions