Housewives: "Dependent Creatures"! "Parasites"!

In 2013, then U.S. President Barack Hussein Obama awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom to liberal “feminist,” Gloria Steinem. This is the highest honor that the U.S. bestows on civilians. Freedom for what, you might ask? Well, I’m not sure, considering that she’s a champion for abortion. Seems a tad oxymoronic (Did I just say “moronic”?!) to be for women’s “rights” while ignoring the rights of all of the unborn women in the process. But I digress.

Steinem had this to say about me and the millions of other women like me: “[Housewives] are dependent creatures who are still children…parasites.” Okay, well, I wasn’t yet born when she said that, but I still find it quite offensive and degrading, especially in today’s culture that’s all about “empowering women.” And this is the woman who was awarded a medal—BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES!

Carolyn Graglia is a lawyer who left her law practice to stay home and raise her children. In an article that she wrote for The Weekly Standard, she discussed Betty Friedan, “feminist” writer and activist, who also had a negative view of homemakers. Graglia wrote,

Friedan described the housewife in The Feminine Mystique as a ‘parasite’ who lives without using adult capabilities or intelligence and lacks a real function when devoting herself to children, husband, and home. Decrying the housewife's life as a ‘waste of a human self,’ Friedan likened her and her fellow matrons to ‘male patients with portions of their brain shot away and schizophrenics.’ Housewives are ‘less than fully human,’ she said, for they ‘have never known a commitment to an idea,’ ‘risked an exploration of the unknown,’ or ‘attempted . . . creativity.’ That this could be said of women, who literally create life within their wombs, indicates the degree to which feminism has sought to denature women, to reshape them in man's image.

On housewives/homemakers, noted sociologist and “feminist” “scholar” Jessie Bernard declared,

[The] housewife is a nobody, and [housework] is a dead-end job. It may really have a deteriorating effect on her mind…rendering her incapable of prolonged concentration on any single task. [She] comes to seem dumb as well as dull. [B]eing a housewife makes women sick.

Dumb and dull? Dependent creature? Parasite? Schizophrenic? Sadly, many on the left—especially women on the left—still harbor these hateful feelings toward stay-at-home moms. Being a homemaker, I’m taken aback and highly offended that people would not only think such nonsense but would actually speak or write it for others to read and hear, and there are many more such quotes out there, as you can imagine. I studied these loonies when I was working on my own sociology degree back in the 90s, but even then, as a college kid, I knew they were nuts.

I won’t argue that being a stay-at-home, homeschooling mom is intellectually stimulating at every moment, but it is what we make of it. No doubt, these “champions” of feminism want children to be in the control of the government at the earliest ages possible. They push for taxpayer-funded daycare and preschool, in addition to the massive public K-12 education system so that children can be properly indoctrinated for their entire young lives. I suppose it’s too logical that mothers would raise their own children. Of course, many of these so-called “feminists” think that the earth is overpopulated and that we shouldn’t be having children, anyway.

I will admit that I’m pretty dependent on my husband’s income, and I’m very thankful that he’s a wonderful provider for our family. However, there are two sides to the story. On the one hand, he has much more earning potential than I do because he has two graduate degrees, and he wants to work outside the home. On the other hand, he affirms that I’m much better suited to the day-to-day duties of childrearing, cooking, budgeting, and caring for our home (as I believe most women are).

I love having the freedom (That is what Steinem, Friedan, and Bernard championed, right?) to raise our children, to educate them, to stretch our dollars by couponing, to write books, to volunteer at church, to handle our family’s finances, to feed us and clothe us, to be involved in all of my kids’ activities, to care for our home, and ultimately to “be there” for my family.

I really don’t have to justify myself to anyone except the Lord. To be quite frank, I think He’s pretty pleased with homemakers and moms. After all, this is what He had to say about us many moons ago:

A wife of noble character who can find? She is worth far more than rubies. Her husband has full confidence in her and lacks nothing of value. She brings him good, not harm, all the days of her life…She is clothed with strength and dignity, she can laugh at the days to come. She speaks with wisdom, and faithful instruction is on her tongue. She watches over the affairs of her household and does not eat the bread of idleness. Her children arise and call her blessed, her husband also, and he praises her…Charm is deceptive and beauty is fleeting; but a woman who fears the Lord is to be praised. (Proverbs 31:10-12, 25-28, 30)

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Michelle Thomas is a Christ follower, wife to and chief editor for Trevor Thomas, and a homeschooling mom to four amazing children. She is the author of the brand new devotional book for moms called Lord, I Need You, a book about her grief journey called Through Deep Waters, and a chronicle of their financial journey called Debt-Free Living in a Debt-Filled World. Her website is KingdomCrossing.com, and she can be reached by email at michelle@kingdomcrossing.com.

We’re Raising Our Boys to be “Dangerous” Men

My wife Michelle and I have three sons and one daughter. Much to the dismay of foolish, so-called “feminists” like Jody Allard, we’re raising every one of them to be “dangerous,” though, not in the sense that Ms. Allard imagines. It’s worse—much, much, worse.

In case you missed it, Ms. Allard is the infamous mother who—while longing for “safe,” “feminist men,” and lamenting the allegedly numerous men who populate the so-called “rape culture,”—has more than once publicly shamed her two sons. I suppose the young men—both in their late teens—should at least be thankful that their angry, deceived, corrupted-by-liberalism mother didn’t kill them in the womb.

Last year, in a piece for the Washington Post, Ms. Allard stunningly declared, “My sons are part of the [rape culture] problem.” What makes her conclusion so stunning is that this mother deems her own boys “part of the problem,” not because of some wicked sexual activity, but merely because they are males and they refuse to participate actively in ending the “rape culture.”

This year, Allard followed up her 2016 hyperbole with this:

If the feminist men — the men who proudly declare their progressive politics and their fight for [e]quality— aren’t safe, then what man is? No man, I fear. 

I know I’m not supposed to cast an entire sex with a single paint brush — not all men, I’m sure some readers are thinking and preparing to type or tweet. But if it’s impossible for a white person to grow up without adopting racist ideas, simply because of the environment in which they live, how can I expect men not to subconsciously absorb at least some degree of sexism? White people aren’t safe, and men aren’t safe, no matter how much I’d like to assure myself that these things aren’t true. (Emphasis mine.)

Of course, unsafe men include her own sons. Again, Ms. Allard intolerantly labels her own boys unsafe because they have a penis and because they refuse to acknowledge the “rape culture” their mother insists exists.

There is a terrible bit of tragic irony here. Because they’ve been raised by an extremely liberal mother and without a father, almost certainly Ms. Allard’s sons are saddled with a psychology and a worldview that most likely will take them down regrettable paths. As I’ve often noted, the absence of fathers has had a devastating effect on children in America.

Among many other sad outcomes, fatherlessness is one of the leading predictors of future criminal activity. Children living with their married biological parents are the least likely to commit criminal acts. On the other hand, according to Effects of Fatherless Families on Crime Rates,

Children of single-parent homes [almost always without a father] are more likely to…engage in questionable behavior, struggle academically, and become delinquent. Problems with children from fatherless families can continue into adulthood. These children are three times more likely to end up in jail by the time they reach age 30 than are children raised in intact families, and have the highest rates of incarceration in the United States… 

According to Rolf Loeber, Professor of Psychiatry, Psychology and Epidemiology at the Western Psychiatric Institute in the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine, “A close and intense relationship between a boy and his father prevents hostility and inappropriate aggressiveness.” This inappropriate aggressiveness is an early indication of potential delinquency later on, particularly in boys.

According to Edward Kruk at Psychology Today, among other “disastrous” results, fatherless children are much more likely to be involved in violent crime (such as sexual assault). Kruk reports that “85 per cent of youth in prison have an absent father; fatherless children are more likely to offend and go to jail as adults.” As Maggie Gallagher warned in the late 1990s, “Fatherless Boys Grow Up Into Dangerous Men.”

Additionally, multiple studies note that fatherless children (and children from broken families in general) are FAR more likely to themselves be victims of violence and sexual assault. The National Children’s Alliance reveals,

Family structure is the most important risk factor in child sexual abuse. Children who live with two married biological parents are at low risk for abuse. The risk increases when children live with step-parents or a single parent. Children living without either parent (foster children) are 10 times more likely to be sexually abused than children that live with both biological parents. Children who live with a single parent that has a live-in partner are at the highest risk: they are 20 times more likely to be victims of child sexual abuse than children living with both biological parents (Sedlack, et. al., 2010).

In spite of these sobering facts—that anyone with a sound biblical worldview did not need to read—liberals like Ms. Allard continue to wage war on the family in America. What does the perverse redefinition of marriage achieved by liberals reveal if not that they believe that fathers and mothers don’t really matter? The sexual sin and violence that plagues our culture are the direct result of the efforts of liberals across the U.S —from our campuses to our courts. In other words, on sexual assault (or “rape culture”), liberals like Ms. Allard are mourning a culture that they helped to create.

Ms. Allard claims to have talked with her boys about “consent, misogyny and rape culture since they were tweens,” but has she talked to them about what it truly means for a husband to love his wife and for a wife to love her husband? Has she taught them to remain sexually pure until they are married? Has she warned them about the dangers of promiscuity, pornography (and its link to sexual aggression), and the homosexual lifestyle?

Among many other lies and perversions promoted by modern liberalism, my wife and I are warning our children about these dangers. What’s more, we are raising them to be agents of truth in this era of lies. We are teaching them to obey the Word of their Creator when it comes to marriage, sex, the family, and so on. We are teaching them to be witnesses to the world of all that is good and right, but given where we are with the sad state of the family in America, this is especially true of matters in the sexual realm.

In other words, we are teaching each of our four children to be “dangerous” to the cause of the “father of lies” and all of those who aid and abet him in this world.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2017, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

“Feminist” Fools: Nasty is as Nasty Does

The day after Donald Trump took the oath of office to become the forty-fifth President of the United States, radical liberal feminazis took to the streets of Washington D.C. and put on a disgusting display of hedonism and hate. What was billed as the “Women’s March on Washington” quickly devolved into what any sound-minded political observer knew it would, and the worst of the American left was on unhinged display for all the world to see.

Clueless to the notion that their unseemly words and deeds were instrumental in Mr. Trump winning the White House and conservative candidates across the U.S. winning in historic fashion, angry leftist women held back little as they vented their political rage in the nation’s capital and across the U.S. Accompanied by a young female (perhaps a juvenile, which should surprise no one) with “F-ck Trump” written on the front of her shirt and both middle fingers singularly pointed at the sky, Drudge’s headlined blared, “Women’s March Turns Nasty.” Was there any real doubt it would?

What else is to be expected when angry liberals don’t get their way, especially in an election? Have you ever wondered why liberals get so upset when they lose elections? It is because they have placed their hope in the forces of this world, especially political ones. Thus, when they lose at the ballot box, often, a fit ensues. Those who understand that this world is not our home—that real hope and real change are not brought about by mere politicians—are not very prone to throwing vile and violent tantrums when an election doesn’t go their way.

The Drudge headline was only a sampling of the ugliness on display this past Saturday. The very appropriately named “Jezebel” magazine provides a revealing montage (warning: graphic language—of course) of the message liberals wanted to impart to the world after Donald Trump’s inauguration. Reporting on what he deemed a “p*ssy riot,” Byron York at the Washington Examiner provides another smattering of the rampant rudeness that was paraded across the U.S.

Of course, being like-minded, the liberal media gleefully lapped this all up and spewed it back out far and wide. Again, all of this was probably to President Trump’s advantage. As if we needed to be reminded of the liberal double-standard in the mainstream media, nevertheless, as Erick Erickson noted,

People are idiots. Donald Trump will keeping winning because people are idiots. And no, I am not talking about Trump supporters. I am mostly talking about the press corps.

Let’s review Saturday shall we? 

The press decided to give massive coverage to the Women’s March in Washington with members of the press gleefully reporting every insult against Trump, but patently ignoring that one of the key speakers opposed the collapse of the Berlin Wall because she thought the communists were better than us. Another speaker, Ashley Judd, suggested Trump supporters were Nazis. 

Consider the reaction of the press had this been said of Barack Obama. Well, we do not have to ponder it. We know. The press was outraged. Remember how a congressional staffer got fired for tweeting something about the Obama kids? On Friday, multiple people with blue checkmarks on Twitter were attacking Baron Trump and the press said nothing. We also know how the press responded when anyone called Obama a muslim, Nazi, commie, etc. 

All this reinforces in many people’s minds that there is a double standard. And that double standard went into full force on Saturday. Supposedly objective reporters spent the day as activists and you all know it.

Along with the expected Nazi and Hitler references, the most common theme of the protestors centered around sex organs and sexual acts. Probably the most-used verb on any poster was, as Ralphie Parker put it, “the queen mother of all dirty words:” the “f-dash-dash-dash.” Taking her queue from the posters (as if she needed any encouragement), pop-harlot Madonna left the live-broadcasting media to apologize for her f-themed tirade. And along with foolishly declaring that she had “thought about blowing up the White House,” Madonna also sang some of her nastiness and changed the lyrics of one song to include “Donald Trump suck a d*ck.”

No doubt the most used noun on any poster was some vulgar reference to a vagina. In fact, whether in print or of a more knit variety, there were more references to female genitalia at this women’s march than in all of the dirty gas station men’s rooms across the U.S. Yet, we are told that Donald Trump is the vulgar one. Again, no one should be surprised that tens of thousands of angry protestors devoted to a liberal worldview would resort to hyper-sexual behavior in order to make their point. For liberals, sex so often is the point.

Whether screaming about Planned Parenthood, Obamacare, the Supreme Court, bathroom privileges, redefining marriage, redefining gender, and so on, the left—especially the feminist left—is consumed with sex. Most of this energy is concentrated on keeping the “right” to kill children in the womb. Tellingly, pro-life women were excluded from the march. When it initially looked like pro-life groups were going to be allowed to participate, the radical pro-abortionists went ballistic. Declaring that the killing of children in the womb is “central” to feminism, Jessica Valenti was “horrified” that pro-life women were going to be allowed to march with what she must deem as “real feminists.”

March organizers soon apologized for including those willing to stand for the most innocent and defenseless females (and males) among us. The photo below reveals the tragic level of devotion to abortion that exists among the modern left:

Having placed such hope in politics and government explains well why liberals crave political power and why they will do most anything—including donning a “p*ssy hat,” conducting a “p*ssy riot,” and longing for the death of the unborn baby Jesus—to obtain such power. After all, as the Obama years well demonstrated, perverse liberal “values” are best imposed—whether by the threat of jail, fines, or even at the end of a gun—by Big Brother.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2016, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor is the author of the brand new book The Miracle and Magnificence of America
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Will Further Perversions of Title IX Ruin Women’s Athletics? (UPDATED)

Quick (no web searching!), who was the 2016 NCAA Division I women’s basketball champion? (Don’t tell me that your office didn’t do a women’s NCAA tournament bracket contest!) Okay, given that they’ve (UConn) won it four times in-a-row, that’s too easy. Let’s try again: Who was the last (2015) WNBA champion? (Hint: They’ve won it four of the last five seasons.) Don’t feel bad, I didn’t know either, and twice in their recent five-year championship run they defeated the team from my home state in the championship series.

Even better: Can you name five WNBA teams? How about five WNBA players? Last year, the most watched women’s sporting event of all-time occurred. What was it? Can you name the teams or five players (a hint!) who competed? Neither could I.

Speaking of most-watched sporting events, of the 50 most-watched sporting events of 2015, 43 of them were NFL games. Only one was a female sporting event (the answer to the third question in the previous paragraph: last year’s Women’s World Cup final). I know, including the NFL just isn’t fair. Nevertheless, of the 50 most-watched non-NFL sporting events of 2015, only two were women’s events. Even non-humans outperform women’s sports in viewership—three of the 2015 non-NFL top 50 were horse racing events.

In spite of such glaring consumer-based evidence—and as fast as Bernie Sanders can dodge a question on Venezuela and socialism—liberals across the U.S. continue to insist that we must have “equality” when it comes to sports in America. When it comes to college and high school athletics, the infamous Title IX is the favorite instrument of liberals with which to discriminate in order to eliminate “discrimination.”

Enacted in 1972, Title IX benignly declares, “No person in the United States shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.” In the initial hearings prior to the law being passed, very little mention was made of athletics. At that time, most of the focus was on the hiring and employment practices of federally funded educational institutions—especially colleges and universities.

Of course Title IX soon devolved into a weapon used to impose radical feminist ideology upon public colleges and universities. This is especially the case with college athletics.

In the 44-year history of Title IX, hundreds of men’s college athletic programs have been killed, with tens of thousands of male athletes losing the opportunity to compete at the collegiate level. In 1981 there were 146 Division I men’s wrestling programs. Today, only about half of that number (77) exists. According to the Government Accountability Office, from 1981 to 1999 a total of 171 college wrestling programs (all divisions) were eliminated. Since 1980, about 80 percent of Division I men’s gymnastics teams have been lost (from nearly 80 teams down to only 15).

On the other hand, colleges and universities are literally inventing opportunities for female athletes. For example, with 89 participants—which is 40 percent larger than the average NCAA Division I rowing program—the women’s rowing team at the University of Iowa is the second largest athletic program (behind football). According to a recent article in The Gazette, in order to create more opportunities for college females to participate in athletics, rowing teams across the U.S. “are unique in that they have a novice division for freshmen, most of whom have never rowed.”

This is unsurprising, as very few high schools in the U.S.—and none in Iowa—offer girls rowing. Thus, in order to fill Title IX quotas, schools are reduced to “recruiting” female rowers from their own campuses. Women’s college rowing teams scour their campuses in search of women who are “tall and athletic.” Instead of inflated rosters on existing sports teams, some women’s sports advocates are calling for new sports opportunities for females such as lacrosse or ice hockey. Yet scant numbers of high schools (less than 6%—about 2,200 teams out of more than 37,000 high schools) across the U.S. offer girl’s lacrosse. Even fewer offer ice hockey.

And virtually none of these college women’s teams produce revenues that can support their budgets. In the 2014-2015 season, the University of Iowa women’s rowing team’s net revenue was less than one-tenth of its operating budget. Almost every women’s college athletics program in America loses money. (Consistently, at the collegiate level, only football and men’s basketball make money.)

And this is true of women’s professional sports teams as well. On the heels of winning the 1999 World Cup and the gold medal at the 2000 Olympics, incorrectly sensing a growing interest in women’s soccer, American investors created the Women’s United Soccer Association. This professional women’s soccer league lasted only three seasons and lost over $100 million dollars. In 2009 the Women’s Professional Soccer league began play. It too lasted only three seasons.

The most “successful” American professional women’s sports league is the WNBA. Yet it was 14 seasons before a single WNBA team actually made money. It’s nearly impossible to find the hard figures—almost certainly because there is virtually no one in the mainstream sports media who wishes to acknowledge the truth—but the best I can tell, in nearly 20 years of operation, the WNBA as a whole has yet to turn a profit. (It’s only lasted as long as it has because it’s been financially propped up by the NBA.) Tellingly, as of 2014, over 50 NBA players made more money than every WNBA player combined.

There will never be “gender equality” when it comes to athletics, because human genders are not—and will never be—equal. Men are bigger, faster, and stronger than women. And “bigger, faster, and stronger” makes for more exciting and interesting sports. What’s more, as most anyone not devoted to a liberal worldview who’s observed human beings for at least 15 minutes was already aware, men are naturally more physically aggressive than are women. As Psychology Today points out:

The fact that males are more aggressive and more violent is reflected by their anatomy itself; in many animals species they are heavier, more muscular, better armed with means of attack and defense. In humans, for example, the arms of men are, on average, 75 percent more muscular than those of women; and the top of a male body is 90 percent stronger that the top of a female body [Bohannon, 1997; Abe et al., 2003, apud Goetz, 2010, p. 16]. Also, men are taller, they have denser and heavier bones, their jaw is more massive, their reaction time is shorter, their visual acuity is better, their muscle/fat ratio is greater, their heart is bulkier, their percentage of hemoglobin is higher, their skin is thicker, their lungs bigger, their resistance to dehydration is higher etc. In other words, from all points of view, men are more suited for battle than women, and these skills are native.

And as Ann Coulter noted over a decade ago, “Competitive sports are ritualized forms of fighting, and boys like to fight.” In other words, sports—especially those involving heavy contact—is a form of battle, and in spite of what the Obama administration would have us believe, men are much more suited for battle than are women. No amount of legislation or other forms of legal wrangling is going to change these facts.

But as we all know, liberalism has never let facts get in the way of their agenda, and with new efforts derived from an even more perverse interpretation of Title IX, liberals may have finally found a way to make women’s sports more interesting: let men compete as women.

Given the moral depths to which our culture has sunk on sex and sexuality, it’s very easy these days to find “transgender” advocates touting Title IX as giving students wide-ranging “rights” to live a lie. Among many other crazy things, on “transgender and gender non-conforming students,” The National Center for Transgender Equality declares:

• You have the right to equal educational opportunities regardless of your gender, including your gender identity or expression, or your race, nationality, or disability. This includes not being punished or excluded from school activities or events [read: sports] because you are transgender or gender non-conforming.
• You have the right to use restrooms, locker rooms, and other facilities that are consistent with your gender identity, and can’t be forced to use separate facilities.

As early as five years ago the NCAA “Office of Inclusion” produced a document that, among many other crazy things, recommended allowing humans who were born male to compete as females. They piously and ignorantly declared that assumptions commonly made about humans born male who wish to pretend they are female “are not well founded.”

Ignoring sound science and common sense, the June 2016 edition of the “science” magazine Cosmos concludes that, “It’s only a matter of time before trans female athletes compete in the Olympics,” and “they will not have an edge over the rest of the field.”

The state of Alaska is already allowing boys to compete against girls. Just days ago, KTUU in Anchorage reported that Nattaphon Wangyot—who was born male but identifies as a female—was allowed to represent Haines High School in the women’s 3A 200-meter race at the state track meet. I wonder what poor girl was kept out of the meet as the result of such blatant discrimination. Wangyot also played volleyball and basketball, presumably on the girl’s teams. I wonder what poor girls lost playing time as the result of having a boy participate on their team.

Given that we now live in a culture that has legally redefined the oldest institution in the history of humanity, whether we’re talking about locker rooms or restrooms, it should come as little surprise that we are now debating what is a male and what is a female. However, no one seems to be pointing out that this type of perverse thinking ONLY hurts (real) female athletes. If mental illness and hormone therapy were really all that’s necessary to level the playing field, why are no “transgender males” (females pretending to be men) beating (real) men, at any type of elite level, in any sport? In the combined 276-year history of MLB, the NFL, and the NBA, no human being born a female has ever been a regular member of any of those leagues.

Real women better rise up and notice what is happening. If this is the path the homosexual agenda (which includes the transgender apologists) now wants to take, Title IX (ironically) is now being used to render women athletics a farce.

(See this column at American Thinker and The Patriot Post.)

UPDATE: Some interesting recent articles (on the state of professional women's athletics) courtesy of some folks at the Free Republic (thanks DWW!):

U.S. women’s hockey team scrimmaging against high school boys with mixed results

What happened to girl power? Australia's national women's soccer team the Matildas lose 7-0 to an under FIFTEEN boys' side

UPDATE 2: It seems that the guy competing against girls at the high school state track meet in Alaska got 3rd place in the 200-meter race! So this is where radical feminism has taken us: guys taking medals from girls! I guess there's no end to the absurdity that liberalism will yield.

Copyright 2016, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

A Pretender Tells the Truth on Pop-Music Prostitutes

What a sad indictment on our culture that a twice-divorced Vaishnava, PETA loving vegetarian rock-and-roller who once tried to convince the drug-addicted lead singer of the Sex Pistols to marry her, is now a voice of reason when it comes to the hyper-sexed nature of modern pop music.

Chrissie Hynde, the 64-year-old former lead singer of The Pretenders, recently implied that the “bumping and grinding,” underwear-wearing musicians Miley Cyrus, Rihanna, Beyoncé, Katy Perry and the like, are nothing more than prostitutes. In accusing such singers of doing “a great deal of damage to women” with their risqué performances, the exact label used by Hynde was “sex worker.”

Hynde went so far as to accuse the gyrating hussies of putting women in danger. Hynde declared, “I don’t think sexual assault is a gender issue as such, I think it’s very much it’s all around us now. It’s provoked by this pornography culture, it’s provoked by pop stars who call themselves feminists. Maybe they’re feminists on behalf of prostitutes – but they are no feminists on behalf of music, if they are selling their music by bumping and grinding and wearing their underwear in videos. That’s a kind of feminism – but, you know, you’re a sex worker is what you are.”

Hynde is exactly right. And as I noted over a year ago, tragically, the “sex worker” and “pornography culture” she describes extends far beyond the realm of today’s pop music. For decades now, our media has been saturated with such smut. In our household, we’ve long referred to these Hollywood sluts as “high-priced harlots.” Whether in TV, motion pictures, music videos, swimsuit magazines, lingerie ads, burger ads, and so on, what else are we supposed to call women who do little more than make money by displaying their flesh?

For nearly three generations now, despite, in some cases, the best efforts of their parents, we have had boys grow into men who have seen thousands of images of scantily clad, seductive-acting women. It is little wonder then, that, instead of marriage and family, many young men now seek only “friends with benefits.”

As they take notice of what draws the attention of today’s young males, young girls are often duped into emulating the attractive and scantily clad women they see on TV and the internet, in movies and magazines. Walk through any mall or park during warm weather. You will see girls from pre-pubescent age on up with their bodies barely covered.

As my lovely wife noted last year, “Females must begin to take some responsibility by dressing for respect instead of for sex. What we wear says a lot about us, whether we intend it or not. It isn’t fair for us to dress like sluts and expect men to behave themselves like gentlemen. It goes both ways.”

It is also little wonder then that we now live in a “hook-up” culture, where women and men both are a means to a selfish sexual end—which has, among other disastrous things, led to over 40% of American children being born out of wedlock. Most of these children are raised without a father. Much of the violent (including rape) and criminal behavior exhibited by boys and young men today is, to a great extent, the sad result of growing up without a father, or at least a father who will teach and model for them how they are supposed to treat women.

And instead of teaching and promoting eternal truths on sex, marriage, and the family, whether with abortion, the homosexual agenda, the transgender agenda, pornography, and the like, modern feminists have embraced nearly every sexually deviant perversion known in our culture. As the Apostle Paul put it, they are “God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil.”

Chrissie Hynde recently penned Reckless: My Life as A Pretender. “I regret half of this story,” she declares. Hynde has been very candid about her sorrow for past drug and alcohol abuse, her broken relationship with her parents, and her sexual promiscuity. Modern feminists and their apologists are paying little attention.

In reviewing Reckless, the Boston Globe’s Mike Shanahan said that “controversial comments about rape and provocative attire” by Hyndes “suggests she may have a ways to go” when it comes to feminism. How duped by feminist lies does one have to be to stand up for the likes of a twerking demon-in-heat-like Miley Cyrus?

Make no mistake about it, unless they repent from their hedonistic lifestyle sooner rather than later, and if they manage to live long enough, many of today’s feminists will be sounding like Chrissie Hynde.

(See this column on American Thinker.)

Copyright 2015, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com

Jolie, Pitt, and Gender Madness

With the Christmas Day release of the Angelina Jolie-produced and directed film, Unbroken, I came across the news that discussed the red-carpet appearance of Jolie’s family at the film’s premiere. Jolie was down with chickenpox, so her family was out in force supporting her and the film. With Jolie absent, much of the media attention turned to her eight-year-old daughter, Shiloh.

Shiloh has drawn the media’s eye because, despite being a girl, Jolie and her husband, actor Brad Pitt, are adorning the child as if she were a boy. In other words, it seems that Jolie and Pitt are willing to use the poor child as a pawn in furthering the feminist-homosexual agenda that dominates today’s liberalism.

Jolie and Pitt would never openly admit to using their child as a tool in their feminist-homosexual games. They claim, as do many in these situations, that they are simply allowing their child to choose this path. When Shiloh was as young as two-and-a-half, Pitt claimed to Oprah Winfrey that the little girl only wanted to be called “John.” In 2010, when Shiloh was about four, Jolie told Vanity Fair that her child “wants to be a boy…She thinks she’s one of the brothers.”

Liberal apologists for the feminist-homosexual agenda tell parents that they should simply accept a child’s cross-gender behavior. Liberals like Jolie and Pitt are only too happy to oblige. Because of their complete acceptance of homosexuality in all of its perversions—including transgenderism—they must have their own personal lives reflect this warped worldview. What better way to show your commitment to such a worldview than to have your own child live it out.

Make no mistake about it, this easily could be described as child abuse, and yet the mainstream media is doing nothing but lending their support to such perversion.

The pro-homosexual publication The Advocate recently noted how sharp young Shiloh looked at the red-carpet premiere dressed in a suit and tie like her brothers, and sporting her hair shortly cropped. The UK Telegraph reported glowingly on Shiloh’s appearance at the premiere as well. They also took the opportunity to instruct us all in how we are to raise good little gender-benders.

“To explore what it means to be both genders is also totally normal,” said Linda Blair, the clinical psychologist sought out by the Telegraph. And of course, the implication is that such exploration is never to be discouraged. “[T]he problem,” says Blair, is that we have “suppressed” such exploration “for so many generations, that people are still not comfortable with it. You can’t become what you are until you know what you’re not.”

Of course, “what you are” according to “gender feminism” is, as Mary Brown Parlee put it in Psychology Today in the late 1970s, “as much a social decision as a recognition of biological fact.” Or, as another feminist writer put it, “Although many people think men and women are the natural expression of a genetic blue-print, gender is a product of human thought and culture, a social construction that creates the ‘true nature’ of all individuals.”

Until as recently as 2012, the common-sense notion that men who believed they were women, and vice-versa, was a mental illness, prevailed. Bowing to the feminist-homosexual agenda, in late 2012, the APA removed “gender identity disorder” from its diagnostic manual. However, the politics of the APA doesn’t change sound science and morality.

As the former psychiatrist-in-chief of Johns Hopkins Hospital noted earlier this year, transgenderism is “a mental disorder that deserves understanding, treatment and prevention.” He adds, not treating transgender disorder properly “can lead to grim psychological outcomes.” Almost certainly “grim psychological outcomes” loom for 8-year-olds, who surely know nothing of transgender disorders, but who have been conditioned for years to live as the opposite sex.

Since at least the 1970s, when among other things, feminazi Gloria Allred sued the Sav-On drugstore chain for daring to label its toy section “Boys’ Toys” and “Girls’ Toys,” liberals have attempted to sell the lie that the only differences between boys and girls—aside from the obvious biological ones—were the result of “patriarchal cultural biases.”

As psychologist, author, and renowned family expert Dr. James Dobson put it in his excellent book, Bringing Up Boys, the ultimate goal of the feminists and homosexual activists is to “dissolve the traditional roles of mothers and fathers and, in time, eliminate such terms as wife, husband, son, daughter, sister, brother, manhood, womanhood, boy, girl, masculine, and feminine.”

Jolie and Pitt are just a famous example of what is playing out all over the country when it comes to gender feminism, and things are even crazier than Dr. Dobson imagined when he penned Bringing Up Boys in 2001. The U.S. Dept. of Education just directed schools that receive federal funds to allow students to be placed in classes that align with their “gender identity” when it comes to placement in single-sex classrooms. This includes sex-education classes, which are often segregated by gender.

The state of New York just issued a regulation that requires Medicaid to cover treatment for “transgenders,” including sex-change operations. Earlier this year, the Southern Poverty Law Center threatened to sue the Georgia Department of Corrections if it didn’t provide hormone treatment for a male inmate who wishes to live as a woman. As was noted in 2013, the notorious traitor Bradley Manning also wants taxpayers to foot the bill for his “conversion” from male to female (which is impossible).

A superior court in Maine recently fined a school district $75,000 for refusing to allow a boy, who identifies as a girl, to use the girls’ restroom. This year also saw the Minnesota athletic league, in the name of “transgender inclusivity,” vote 18 to 1 to allow children to participate on sports teams according to whichever gender with which they identify. Of course, the state of California leads the way when it comes to accommodating gender perversions in its state schools—all the way down to the kindergarten level.

This is just a sampling of the gender madness that is sweeping the U.S. (For more, see my marriage/family/sexuality archives.) Liberals across the U.S., aided and abetted by the Democrat Party, are, through legislation and the courts, pushing the transgender agenda. At least eighteen states (note: those dominated by liberals), plus the District of Columbia, have laws that prevent “discrimination” against the transgendered, including restroom access.

If liberals had their way, they would pass similar legislation at the federal level, thus forcing every community across the U.S. to accommodate the transgendered (see the Employment Non-Discrimination Act). And instead of Jolie and Pitt and their kind being investigated, or at least socially rejected, liberals would have them celebrated from sea to shining sea.

(See this column at American Thinker.)

Copyright 2014, Trevor Grant Thomas
At the Intersection of Politics, Science, Faith, and Reason.
www.trevorgrantthomas.com
Trevor and his wife Michelle are the authors of: Debt Free Living in a Debt Filled World
tthomas@trevorgrantthomas.com