Training Day

I'm so grateful to be the part owner of a small business, with no other boss than myself...

...because if I had to go through what this guy describes, I think I'd blow a gasket.

...today, for the first time, I had to attend a mandatory sexual harassment training course.

Can you say "coporate re-education camp for the indoctrination of feminist dogma?"

I find it deeply offensive to my personal sense of honor and integrity to be punished or otherwise lectured on something I did not do. Period. And to be subjected to two hours of second-grade style, “who can tell me what Johnny did wrong by telling Sarah she has a hot body” lecturing infuriates me on many levels.

To begin with, I do not need to be told this is inappropriate behavior. I already know that is inappropriate behavior. I learned that was inappropriate behavior not from the State of California or a battalion of corporate lawyers, but from my parents, who raised me to be polite, well-mannered, and who spent much of their own youth trying to form me into a civilized gentleman.

I hear ya buddy...but don't ya know? There are now millions of kids who are raised by minimum wage day care workers, and single mothers getting welfare checks to subsidize their 'freedom from Patriarchal oppression.' You can't expect THOSE kids to understand things like the behavior of a civilized gentleman!

I was treated to a video that had precisely the same emotional pitch and condescension as the old ABC After-School Specials, which is appropriate when aimed at 10-year-olds but in a room full of adults was unimaginably cloying and infantile. In this helpful lecture on the evils of hateful stereotypes, a clueless, insensitive white male managed to offend everyone without the dimmest awareness of his own boorishness until confronted and re-educated (with a rising string section!) by emotionally advanced, sensitive (yet strong!) women and his solemn, understanding (but firm!), black male superior.

While I appreciate your scorn for the insult to your intelligence that represents blatantly over-dramatized propaganda targeted towards a 10 year old's intellectual level, I must disagree...at least you are old enough to see through the politically correct lies of this garbage. It is much more INappropriate to indoctrinate actual 10 years olds with this feminist drivel!

But what really set me off was learning that there are “protected categories” of people who apparently have special claims on being harassed, and that these groups include, but are not limited to:

“Race, color…” [in case you happen to be green or of some color not associated with your race] ”…religious creed, sex, national origin, ancestry, citizenship status, pregnancy, childbirth…” [this being different from pregnancy presumably only if you are actually giving birth right there in your cubicle] “…physical disability, mental disability, age, military status or status as a Vietnam-era or special disabled veteran, marital status, registered domestic partner or civil union status, gender (including sex stereotyping and gender identity or expression), medical condition (including, but not limited to, cancer-related or HIV-related), or sexual orientation.”

These – including but not limited to -- “protected categories” are areas in which “harassment” is especially hurtful, as far as I can understand it… which is not very far at all. Can you – offhand – think of any kind of harassment that does not fit into these categories? I suppose saying hateful things about the Florida State football team is okay as long as I don’t use the word “Seminoles” (which would then become offensive on the grounds of race, color, religious creed, national origin, ancestry and military status; to which, I will add as a Gator fan regarding FSU grads, mental disability and – what the hell – sexual orientation.)

Don't ya know? In today's Matriarchal society, all Animals are equal...only some Animals are more equal!

All of this is mere sophistry and cover of course, for the essence of the 22 page workbook I received (and for which I was not given a crayon with which to write nor a gold star when it was completed) was boiled down to a single sentence, in bold italics at the bottom of page 15:

It is not the intent of the alleged harasser, but the impact on the recipient.

It doesn’t matter if you meant to hurt someone. As long as someone was hurt, then harassment took place.

Welcome to the Matriarchy! It's not what you meant or didn't mean to do or say...it's how SHE FEELS that determines the level of your ThoughtCrime and Double-plus Ungood Speech!

Now at the end of all this, the facilitator – who is clearly a lovely person, for this is not aimed at her – smilingly told us not to be paranoid but just to be careful not to offend anyone. And the other 23 people nodded happily and made jokes and goofed around to show how lighthearted and un-paranoid we suddenly all were. And yet, this harassment and sensitivity training did not succeed fully, because there was one person who was offended, and who in point of fact felt extremely harassed. And that person was me.

Sorry. You're a privileged, White Male. You CAN'T be offended or harrassed, because you're a member of the Patriarchal Hegemony that needs to be overthrown!

My parents – remember them? – taught me at an early age that what people said or thought or wrote about me did not have the power to hurt me – only I can allow them to do that. My self-worth, self-respect and self-esteem are earned, and not given, and are therefore mine – impervious to anything in the outside world, which is why I am willing to sit at this desk, as the only one of 24 happy, smart, creative people, and look like some reactionary nut case for being enraged about the fact that we willingly submit ourselves to insults to our personal honor and integrity that our forefathers would never, ever have countenanced. And I am ashamed on behalf of them. But just me. No one else thinks anything of it at all.

You can't blame your 23 other colleagues...they are simply just another example of how We The Sheeple have been effectively and deliberately dumbed-down to become nothing more than HUMAN RESOURCES for our corporate overlords, happy in our debt-slavery!

And so, with smiles and good will all around, behind a plate of donuts and cartons of morning orange juice, we again fall another step from the adult world of action and consequence, to the warm, friendly, everlasting childhood of kindergarten, where no one’s feelings can ever be hurt and teacher is always there to make sure – in her gentle but firm way – that there will never be harmful consequences to your actions because your actions will be so curtailed in advance that offending someone – like feeding and housing yourself – are things that we simply no longer have to worry about any more.

While this blogger never explicitly makes the connection between feminism and the indoctrination he was forcibly subjected to, he certainly describes the new paradigm of our permanently infantilized society promulgated by the Feminist Police State.

Guy Ritchie Foregoes Madonna's $$$ for Custody

While one part of me wishes Guy Ritchie would make an example of the total inequity and injustice of the Feminist corrupted Divorce Court system, and take Madonna to the cleaners like Heather Mills did to Sir McCartney...

...the example he sets here is more important, and it is something divorcing parents from all walks of life should pay attention to as they get ready to battle it out in court over the physical assets, reducing their children into nothing more than pawns for leverage to squeeze as much money as they can from their soon-to-be ex spouse.


Madonna and Guy strike deal to share custody of the children...but he doesn't get a penny of her £300m fortune

Richie, who is currently looking after their sons, took them both to the London set of his film Sherlock Holmes.

The source said: 'It will be all over by the end of the month. The priority for him has always been the children.

'Ritchie has not wanted her money. He has done exactly what Billie Piper did when she divorced Chris Evans. She walked away without any of his money, much to her credit. Guy Ritchie has done the same.'

A second source said: 'Ritchie could have taken her to the cleaners. He is a very honourable man to have walked away.'

In short, Guy could have hired the most blood-sucking, ambulance-chasing court shark to take up to half of Madonna's fortune, as he is entitled to under UK Family law.

Instead, he gets Madonna to concede to shared custody if he agrees to not go after her money.

On the other hand, it certainly illustrates another aspect of the inherent gender bias in the divorce court industry...as Madonna's negotiations on this settlement most certainly start with the leverage she has from getting default custody for simply being female!

Good to see that Mr. Richie recognizes that no amount of money can replace the time he has to spend with his boys as they are growing up.

Criticism AND Credit Where it is Due

Columnist and "conservative feminist" Kay Hymowitz has recently published an article that has inspired some responses from a few bloggers.

The article in question, Love in the Time of Darwinism, was her response to the avalanche of responses she got for her other article, Child Man in the Promised Land


Here's what a few have written in response to Hymowitz:

From Outcast Superstar:

I must say this article is much improved and I think this time she did a much better job trying to hit the nail on the head.

From Sell Civilization Short:

Hymowitz is dishonest. She's a Cultural Marxist, a con artist who will say anything in order to be the one who sets the rules and breaks them at her pleasure.

To summarize :
1. Hymowitz claims the Men's Rights movement is all about Pick-Up Artists.
2. Hymowitz wants society to put more restrictions on men so that civilization doesn't collapse.
3. Hymowitz wants to be sure that her little elite clique gets to define what the rules are for their own advantage.

The whole piece is classic Cultural Marxism. Harangue the victim with a plea for a return to morality -- then demand to be the arbiter of morality.

Hymowitz should admit her personal guilt and the guilt of her associates in destroying civilized culture.

From
Rex Patriarch:

All I know is that the legal deck is stacked way too far against men. This chicks article changes nothing. The same rule still applies. The only winning move in the dating game is not to play.

From The Elusive Wapiti:

Oh dear. Hymowitz is at it again, this time surveying the behavior of SYMs in the dating scene and concluding that the immature, beastly child-boys have have cravenly replaced gentlemanly romantic behavior with the cold equations of survival-of-the-fittest sexual Darwinism:

I commented on Wapiti's post with the following:

Look through her entire article...not once will you see the word "hypergamy."

The "New Girl Order" (Hymowitz own phrase she coined) has changed women's behavior...but NOT the basic, biological imperatives that drive them to seek out mates with superior genes to give their offspring a better chance to survive and thrive.

Under the New Girl Order, the cultural zeitgeist has basically presented a false paradigm to boys growing into manhood...that they must get in touch with their feminine side, that they must be more emotional and in tune with feelings, etc. Couple this society-wide social conditioning with a generation of boys raised by single mothers of divorce or illegitimacy where they're only ideas of manhood are based on what they're mothers SAY a "real man" should think and behave like (i.e. putting women on a pedestal, femininity), and you have this mass of males growing up to think and act like Beta's.

All's "game" is, is re-connecting men to the idea of masculine dominance as the most desired trait females look for in mate selection.

It is no more manipulative than a woman who seeks to "boost" the mating attributes that males value most -i.e. cosmetics to highlight the appearance of youthful fertility.

The only difference is that in the New Girl Order, where all women are programmed since child hood that they are "equal" and "can do anything a man can do!" and "You Go Girl!" is the overriding mantra of our culture, Women are indoctrinated to SAY they want "equality" with a mate, while subconsciously, they're attraction triggers are based on identifying dominant males!

Kay is incapable of recognizing this, because she too is beholden to the cultural motif of "equality." Most Western Women cannot and will not admit that they value men who are dominant over them...because to admit it aloud would cause cognitive dissonance with their societal programming!

This is EXACTLY why we have women telling their girl-friends, emotional tampon guy friends and gay male friends how they dream of a man who is thoughtful, considerate, in touch with his feelings, blah blah blah...than go out and bang the bad boys.

My thoughts on this particular topic have definitely been influenced from reading PUA websites and blogs.

As notorious PUA blogger, Roissy in D.C., wrote in response to her latest:

Unfortunately, she does not make the connection and put two and two together. The problem lies not with men, who are merely skeleton keys that adapt to whatever lock women weld on their gates; the “problem” lies with women who have no choice but to obey their hindbrain programming and seek higher status mates in the sexual market as long as their assets allow.

While I too am critical of Hymowitz's writings in her two articles dealing with the fallout from the Feminist revolution and it's affects on dating and mating in America, I still feel it necessary to temper criticism with the credit she is due for past works, and that she does make at least some effort to see the male point of view.

Unlike most female writers/columnist/journalists, Hymowitz does not completely surrender her pretense of intellectual honesty to feminist dogma.

In her article, The Black Family: 40 Years of Lies she correctly apportions a share of the blame on feminists for their role in the destruction of the Black family.

I read that article and blogged about it back before both "Child Man in the Promised Land" and "Love in the Time of Darwinism" were published.

I think Hymowitz needs to go back and view the current scene of chaos caused by her New Girl Order, and understand that feminism has not only devastated the Black Family, it is also the direct cause for Men avoiding marriage and family creation, and that this avoidance IS ENTIRELY RATIONAL.