harpy-alert!

"One in three girls are raped or sexually abused," is the ridiculous incendiary announcement of Kylie Tippett, a 'rape prevention educator' unleashed upon our schools to 'educate' youth. Kylie is yet another dangerous peddler of outrageous manufactured claptrap. Her specious numbers are not supported by Police or Justice statistics. Kylie's ilk is responsible for so much febrile feminist foolishness about Miss Average Kiwi who is molested before her 5th birthday, assaulted before 10, raped at 15, and murdered by husband at 20.

"I saw the effect.. of sexual abuse.. so I gained an interest from there"
"Before, I was living in a nice little world where I didn't realise it happened as much as it does"

That was before her empty head was filled with wimmin's-studies slop. Why is this liar given free reign to spread malicious mush in our schools, with no one to challenge her spurious claims? Because like all sly manipulators in victim-grievance cottage industries, she uses sensitive emotive subjects - like paedophilia or infanticide - to shield herself from censure and scrutiny. (After all, only a heartless sod would dare say something unkind about 'protectors' of 'victims'). A saintly noblehood grants immunity from criticism, allowing her toxic nonsense to fester in classrooms unchecked. Her mission to poison minds aided by the ever-obliging NZ Herald, which delights in rabid histrionics. As the outlandish msm hysteria over Louise Nicholas demonstrates, all it takes is one trashy dipstick to cry wolf, and our journos scream "rape!" in unison.

I feel sorry for today's schoolgirls; awash with alcohol, at the mercy of teenboys on hormonal overdrive, with promiscuity encouraged by their libertine dreaming condom-dispensing teachers. Then to be brainwashed by Kylie Tippett and other feminist sickos with deranged pornographic fetishes, who force upon impressionable students outlandish lies and lurid sex fantasies. Feminist rape-fetishists are the flip-side of dirty old men; perverts preoccupied with smut who see lewd innuendo and undercurrents everywhere, but with a violent criminal twist.

Most probably, today's youngsters ARE shagging more than ever. However most casual liaisons are neither romantic nor emotionally sustaining. More likely, they're fraught with strange fears and anxieties, often resulting in regret. And so we have an epidemic of bad sex. Unfortunately, rape has been redefined as any sexual activity that a woman later feels unpleasant. Repeat this lie it often enough and it becomes 'truth'.

Real rape is an abhorrent brutal outrage. Intolerable and unconscionable, it must always be resolutely condemned. But just because sex-obsessed lunatics screech that 1 in 3 women are victims, doesn't make it so. Lies, distortions and exaggerations won't solve sexual assault, catch offenders, protect the innocent or heal survivors. And it doesn't help by telling young women that every unsatisfactory sexual encounter means she was raped.

looking for love in all the wrong places

feckless flirtation

Lusting lawyer sets sleazy precedent by offering tasteless tender to work colleague in a suggestive, but woefully worded email:

I was never looking for anything long term... I thought you were hot & was sure you'd be a rocket in the sack

Hmmm. Not quite a Petrarchan love sonnet, is it? Quite naturally, unimpressed inamorata voids contract immediately and forwards tasteless solicitations via chain email throughout legal circles. Aint he a schmuck, and an incontestable indictment on Aotearoa's attorneys. What do teach them at law schools these days? Certainly not the rhetorical arts of persuasion & sophistry. His poor future clients! Unable to sweet-talk own workmate, what hope he'll ever convince a judge?

skittish scholars
One of my fave moans & pet-hates: the long, slow death of intelligent life in universities by sociologists. Today's all-too-common atrocity concerns an academic fraud & flipped-out leftist nincompoop, whose:

"..current PhD research involves showing the film Chasing Amy to groups of young Danish & Kiwi men & women & discussing their attitudes to sexuality in relation to the film"

I'm sure she's a lovely gal, and yes, theses topics often specialise in arcane matters. But this 'study' (and countless similar) is completely devoid of scholarly merit and symptomatic of the lax standards & intellectual barreness in our ivory towers. Does this 'study' truly add, in any meaningful way, to our collective repository of human wisdom? Puhleeze! Using reactions to a movie (insignificant, forgetable, insipid, formulaic pop-fiction) to assess social behaviour? Is this a genuine quest for knowledge? Or just lazy, indulgent, ill-disciplined, ruminations about pet hobbies, dressed up in report form, disguised as scholarship.

Using the same academic 'rigour', I could do 'research' and show the kissing scenes from my fave show, LOST, then survey NZers attitudes to smooching. How do they prefer it?:

a) unexpectedly by an anxious, harried companion hallucinating in a forest
b) tied to a tree, bloodied & exhausted having just been tortured
c) teetering on edge of terrifying clifftop, as desperate disaster-prevention measure, or
d) a tender, breathless silouhette against golden shimmering beach fire

Does this make me a 'researcher'? Can I have my doctorate now?

moral outrages

Hey, teacher; leave those kids alone!

The schooling profession falls further into disrepute with news of a Southland high school teacher charged with sexual offences with an underage pupil and a Napier college teacher fired for an affair with a 16 year old student. Moral reprobates deserve the harshest of condemnation. This pair of pedagogical perverts have abused the authority entrusted in them, preyed upon vulnerable youngsters, and perpetuate anxieties about the unsuitability of men teachers. Seen in the context of today's schooling it's perhaps unsurprising. Teachers regularly hand out condoms to students, applaud all forms of casual sex, encourage homosexuality, and facilitate abortions without parental consent. Given the permissive sexual environment actively promoted by contemporary educational philosophy, does it shock anyone to discover our schools are rife with amoral lechers who call themselves "teachers"?

Paikea's pepi

Congratulations mum-to-be, Keisha Castle-Hughes, for choosing not to abort your baby. The Family Killing Planning Association (who never met a foetus they didn't try to murder) is most upset she decided against 'terminating' her unborn child. Elsewhere, her pregnancy has attracted an astonishing amount of opprobrium from some quarters here in NZ (of all places!) Good ol' liberal Kiwiland where hookers freely ply their trade, gays 'marry', lesbians become 'fathers', govt funds sex-change operations, mums have multiple kids to various fathers (raised via taxpayer support), marriage is viewed as quaint or reactionary, adultery is condoned, and illegitimate children are the norm. Then a 16 year old Maori girl gets pregnant (shock! horror!) and the wowsers faint with disapproval - sheesh! The correct response to her critics is: "aint none of ya goddamn business!" She's old enough to mother a child, rich enough to support one (won't become a welfare statistic), and her man is happily willing to stand beside her. So apart from crusty, old Victorian throw-backs like me, saddened by kids born outside of wedlock, what's everyone moaning about?

Some are worried about the negative impact a child may have on her film aspirations - as if there are no actresses with children! Just goes to show how devalued motherhood has become. It may be news to the relentless careerists, but many women actually find their children (and subsequent grandchildren) incredibly rewarding. Something that no prestigious job, public acclaim, nor plentiful salary can ever hope to compensate. A woman's choice, remember? Well, some women choose motherhood - and often a career, too. So there!

University Challenges

Oh, the Humanities!

Always pleasurable to witness the demise of institutionalised leftism, so I'm gleeful to learn of 13 redundancies pending at Auckland Uni's arts faculty as enrolment figures plunge. Hoorah! With similar cuts proposed at Massey, Lincoln and Canterbury, could this augur a trend? Let's hope so!

Like the schools of Education and Social Sciences (which have long been strongholds of Marxism) the Humanities have been gutted by unlearned zealots preaching a tired tripartite of sexism, racism and homophobia. Arts faculties no longer teach 'the arts,' which are stripped of their emotional, spiritual, mystical dimensions and reduced to perverted identity politics whining about power and oppression. There's no room for grandeur, majesty, enchantment, wonder, awe and emotional largesse in the cold, sterile sphere of crimped, head-tripping activist ideologues. Today's 'tutors' with a keyhole view of history are divorced from reality, insulated from the larger world outside academia, and estranged from their own feeling natures. What can these emotional eunuchs possibly teach their underlings about art?

Art & literature as taught in the Humanities should inspire students: develop their sensoria and imaginations; cultivate a refined sensitivity to the flux, nuance, mystery, ambiguities and magic irrationalism of emotions; and equip scholars with a vocabulary to articulate the enduring universal psychological truths about human nature. Instead they breed resentful, callow, stunted, enfeebled neurotics who see 'social injustice' everywhere but are blind to the sublime beauty and monumental achievements of Western culture. So I fully applaud the continuing collapse of our Humanities faculties as presently constituted. Parroting progressive palaver is an undesirable educational end-product; whinging about capitalism is not a marketable skill. Perhaps wise future scholars see through the sham?

Congratulations to Geoff Hayward who'll become the 2007 president of the Victoria University Students' Association, ousting incumbent, Nick Kelly. Geoff is also the blog author of The Thorndon Bubble, and although he's a Labour supporter, any lefty who blogrolls me can't be all that bad, imho :-)
Cheers, Geoff! Good luck to you and the VUWSA exec for next year!

The daily whinge

You reap what you sow
Sue Thorne, Head of Early Childhood Council, bemoans dearth of males teaching pre-schoolers. Men comprise less than 1% of childcare workers. I agree with Ms Thorne that the paedophile hysteria (which still hasn't subsided) is a disincentive for would-be male teachers. But then again: so what?

"With few men in our primary schools and fewer in childcare centres we have created a society in which we have quarantined our children from our men."

How ridiculous! Schools are not 'society'. When kids leave their socialist indoctrination gulags each day, they interact with men: fathers, neighbours, shopkeepers, coaches, etc. They will always have exposure to men (unless they live in Auckland, where those mincing, lisping powder-puff Jafas can not, by any stretch of the imagination, be considered 'men'). If pre-schoolers stay at home rather than attend childcare, it's usually with mum while dad works. Do these children, 'quarantined' from men, grow up maladjusted?

If early childcare centres weren't bastions of the most oppressive, invasive, obnoxious PC engineering (no war games, no competition, no rough and tumble, no vigorous activity, no play dough, nothing that might upset any prickly hypersensitive minority groups), then perhaps the industry might attract Normal People rather than the usual warped caboodle of sappy, liberal misfits.

'There was a time, only a few years ago, when few doctors, lawyers or journalists were women, but we changed that' she said."

That's because women, themselves, actively sought these esteemed careers (maybe not journalism). They coveted prestigious and rewarding occupations - unlike early childcare, which is low paid & low status work. Not only that, it's hard yakka, demanding not just specialist training but also a prerequisite aptitude; a sensitive nature, an affinity with children, and the patience of Job. Most men, I submit, are neither suitable nor interested in the job.

Notice how Ms Thorne only values 'gentle, nurturing' men, which not only rules out huge chunks of the male population, but also betrays her fluffy, rosy, estrogen-soaked vision of gender utopia: women who behave like women and men who behave like women. Today's educators - more obsessed with social equity than literacy or developing minds capable of logic thought - want all our children brought up like girls: docile, passive, compliant.

So who cares if early childhood education feminists are bleating about inequality? Unless your hung up on statistical parity & quotas, who cares if men dominate certain professions (military, firefighters, foresty) and women others (nursing, social work, floristry) while yet others have mixed proportions? In case Ms Thorne hasn't noticed, both men & women in NZ are FREE to choose and pursue their own livelihoods. The fact that gender is not evenly distributed among all professions, despite the prolonged concerted efforts of misguided myopic gender activists, just means that the feminists got it wrong. Indeed, the same social architects who toyed, fiddled & tinkered with our education system are ultimately left wallowing in their very own muddied puddle they created.