Header Image (book)


Monday, September 23, 2019

Recommended Reading

See When the Ideologues Come for the Kids by Andrew Sullivan in New York Magazine.

Andrew Sullivan!

Like any religion, wokeness understands the need to convert children. The old Jesuit motto (sometimes attributed to Voltaire) was, after all, “Give me the child for the first seven years and I will give you the man.” And so I was moved but not particularly surprised by George Packer’s tale of a progressive school banishing separate restrooms for boys and girls because this reinforces the gender binary. The school did not inform parents of this, of course:

Parents only heard about it when children started arriving home desperate to get to the bathroom after holding it in all day. Girls told their parents mortifying stories of having a boy kick open their stall door. Boys described being afraid to use the urinals. Our son reported that his classmates, without any collective decision, had simply gone back to the old system, regardless of the new signage: Boys were using the former boys’ rooms, girls the former girls’ rooms....
Note the conclusion of the essay:
Adults are increasingly forced to obey the new norms of “social justice” or be fired, demoted, ostracized, or canceled. Many resist; many stay quiet; a few succumb and convert. Children have no such options.

Indoctrinate yourselves as much as you want to, guys. It’s a free country. But hey, teacher — leave those kids alone.
Read the rest HERE. There is much more in the essay! And not limited to the LBGTQ Movement.

Additional reading (across The Pond, but headed our way): BBC Tells Kids 'People Can Go to Prison' For Disrespecting 'More Than 100' Gender Identities.


  1. A tweet out there this weekend
    CNN uses Goebbels Nazi propaganda tactics this weekend. CNN put a 14 year old girl, talking about climate change. Nice try CNN

    1. Can't argue with children.
      That's child abuse.
      Forcing them to expose themselves to the other sex, not so much, it seems.

  2. Dies Irae and Quantus Tremor said

    Don't you think we're makng too much of this rather silly issue? After I've yet to visit a private hime that had separate bathrooms for males and females, hve yo?

    This childish rhyme smost of us learned in grade school says a great deal more about acceptable standards of bowel and bladder relief than you might think:

    In days of old
    When knights were bold
    And toilets not invented
    They dropped their loads
    Beside the roads,
    And went off quite contented!

    I suspect it was probably not till the Victorian Era, which was marked by coy pretension and absurd hypocrisy that so much evasive nonsense about the facts of being human took hold, and created so much unnecessary stress, and the hideous backlash we'v had to endure since the 1960's.

    When I went to elementary school, we were never allowed to raise our hand and ask directly, "May I please be excused to go to the bathroom?"

    Oh no! We had to say, (I swear I'm not joking!) "May I please be excused to go to the Pagoda?"

    I don't llke where we are today very much, but I wouldn't want to return to THAT kind of prim, decorous absurdity, would you?

    1. I wouldn't want to return to THAT kind of prim, decorous absurdity, would you?

      Oh, I dunno. Might be refreshing.

    2. Outside my office are two single stall restrooms.
      Neither has a urinal. One has flowers.
      That one is labeled "Women", the other, "Men".
      There is no chance of any person being exposed to the other, except when Dean forgot to lock the door, but that sight will someday leave my memory.
      I convinced (with not much effort) the Plant Manager to make them Unisex.
      I would not make that argument for the multi-stall restrooms at the other end of the building.
      Sure, women run into the men's at concerts and sports events, but they do so voluntarily, and usually out of intense need, or intense drinking, which often leads to intense need.
      But kids need propriety and modesty should be encouraged.
      This is part of the liberal loon attempt to make sex a lightly regarded event.
      To lower the overall morality, perhaps even leading to pedophilia as an end result.

    3. Coed bathrooms in college... now THOSE were the days! Americans are way to anal about this.

    4. Ed, you are so right on that....all toward the goal of NO GENDER...no nothing. Just all PEOPLE. How very sad. I kind of LIKE the men/women differences!

  3. Woke white progressives are a grave danger to our nation, our culture, and our societal cohesion.

  4. @Anonymous
    No, we didn't have separate bathrooms at home, but there were only four of us, not hundreds or thousands, and we didn't all go to the bathroom at the same time. Please use your brain for a better purpose that merely a button to keep your spine from unraveling.

    1. Jayhawk,
      Please use your brain for a better purpose that merely a button to keep your spine from unraveling.

      LOL! Good one!

  5. Hitler Youth corps. Need I say more? I also believe the USSR had a form of that.

    1. Yes, an attempt to make sexual congress a lightly esteemed event.
      If God instituted marriage and sexual union to be constrained therein, and He did, then this is part of the anti-God agenda.
      That is no stretch.

  6. Perhaps more disheartening is the Packer article that Sullivan links to.

    As for restrooms, at least here in America, it seems business has spoken and found that in new construction, gender neutral single stall restrooms are just easier and create less stress for their clientele.

    1. "less stress"? I was in a restaurant recently where people were walking toward the bathrooms, then realizing what was going on...backing away......then knowing they had to 'go'...it was sad. ANother, more upscale restaurant, had a good idea in saving money and not upsetting 'wokes' with separate toilets...the sinks and mirrors and paper containers, etc., were all in one big area with female and male clearly marked stalls off of it....that worked! plus, it was extremely contemporary and beautiful...

    2. Z,
      One of my favorite restaurants is constructed as you described toward the end of your comment. It was built that way from the git-go.

      But if a restaurant has to be retrofitted in that manner, the cost is very high. Just sayin'.

    3. I believe I am not understanding the description.
      Why, at that point, would the "gender" of the stalls matter?
      Wouldn't a woman be sitting in a stall next to a man (Which I don't necessarily care about)? What dif if their seating arrangement is reversed.
      Ho are urinals handled?

    4. Ed,
      The freestanding, single-stall bathrooms I encountered had no gender designation -- and no urinals.

    5. Re less stress and Geez... I think we've got to remember, our generation is not the target of too many businesses any longer. We're not part of the group that is looking up the hill of life and preparing to enter their peak spending years.

      The folks that will carry those businesses on for years are the under 40 crowd. Go into any Starbucks, their bathrooms are all unisex. Small cafes are all about 1 or 2 separate private bathrooms, large enough to accommodate someone in a wheelchair.

      Business for the most part has moved on from trying to reach us and is looking to another generation. It's business, pure and simple.

      And the people they are trying to reach see life differently. So business has responded.

  7. Smartest plan for any business. Makes sense and takes away the excuse for the woke jokes to gnash their teeth and stomp their feet.

    1. Would be quite the expenditure to retrofit for such bathrooms -- and cost prohibitive for many businesses if they already have community bathrooms.

    2. AOW... incredibly expensive to retrofit. That's why it is primarily limited to new construction.

  8. Some ideologues really got to that little climate change girl from Europe.

    Her histrionics at the UN look like something out of a bad 1950's melodrama, but I think she really believes what she is saying.

    The adults who filled her head with all that hysterical crap are condemning her to a very unhappy life of mental self-torture.

    1. SF,
      I just watched. Good grief!

      BTW, Greta has already been diagnosed as having psychological problems, including the following:

      Asperger syndrome, obsessive–compulsive disorder (OCD), and selective mutism.

      BTW, her mother is an opera singer and her father an actor.

    2. All that was left was for her to stomp her feet and start singing "I want it all!".

    3. Wherever you lie on the autisitc spectrum, it is confusing how the scientific reports can be so urgent, yet the political response so tepid. I can see only two ways to resolve that disonance: either a) spew anger towards the politicians and the ineffective systems they sustain and are sustained by, or b) flippant dismissal of the reports from scientists.

      Whichever option we as adults find ourselves taking, the children struggling with option a should be neither revered nor censured excessively.

    4. Whichever option we as adults find ourselves taking, the children struggling with option a should be neither revered nor censured excessively.

      ... nor given a political platform and sincerely give their hysterics credence.

    5. Jez,

      I blame the adults, not the girl.

      Focusing on "climate change" is guaranteed to cause hysteria, psychosis and noisy arguments on a global scale. The climate is always changing. Deserts were not always deserts, etc.

      The science is not settled, and people creating this panic are global villains.

      We should be addressing concrete concerns like pesticides, herbicides, potable water, pollution, and helping impacted communities adjust to local changes.

      Many places the propagandists scream are being impacted by "rising oceans" are in fact, sinking. Miami is one example.

    6. I had Thunberg in mind when I said "revered." I'm a little concerned about how the next decade is going to pan out for her.

      "Focusing on "climate change" is guaranteed to cause hysteria, psychosis and noisy arguments on a global scale."
      doesn't sound very productive until perhaps, we might hope, we finally muster the political will to broker a solution. Stranger things have happened.

      But I can see which option you have chosen. I have no quarrel with your preferred choices of emphasis, I just can't dismiss the scientists responsible for the large body of evidence pointing to anthropogenic climate change as "global villains," and anyway I'd much prefer an argument which addressed the actual evidence rather than ad hom.

      Satellite measurements reveal that sea levels are rising at over 3mm / year. Calibrate your hysteria accordingly.

    7. Alarmist Scientists in the 1970's were telling us we'd be in an ice age by.

      Less extrapolation-based pontification and more humility from "science" would be refreshing.

    8. Actually there were far more warming papers published in the '70s than cooling ones. We've had this conversation before, and I think we both know the problem is with sensationalist mainstream journalism.

  9. Loss of habitat around the world should be a top concern, imo.

  10. Replies
    1. @ O & R:

      Although I don't care for Piers Morgan and seldom agree with what he has to say, I believe that was a brilliant summation of the problem.

  11. YUP, it is, Warren. The entire clip appears today at Who's Your Daddy? and I commented favorably on the way Piers Morgan appears to have "Seen the Light."

    I think he my be a changed man. Let us hope so in any case. };^)>

  12. Piers Morgan has not changed. He just look more lefty than he is when he was on CNN.

    I don't know his politics--I imagine he's considered somewhat conservative in England, but I've admired his puckish (and usually spot-on) observations for years.


We welcome civil dialogue at Always on Watch. Comments that include any of the following are subject to deletion:
1. Any use of profanity or abusive language
2. Off topic comments and spam
3. Use of personal invective