Train up your children, but not fully

Switching gears to FoTF and away from the Rainys (Who can really tell the difference?), I mentioned in the previous post that these evangelical ministries have a handful of messages that they churn out over and again. One favorite topics is raising children.It is certainly worthy of serious biblical instruction for parents.

But are these people teaching parents about teaching kids? Are they loosing their crypto-evangelical feminist agenda on kids in order that future generations may require less effort at male bashing? Is the fear and supplication to women so unfettered that they strain everything through a filter designed to catch things that would upset women before it happens? Do they sit at conference tables and test the teachings, not against scripture but against feminist dogma?

It is comprehensive in scope. Before, I showed their efforts towards couples approaching marriage. All the better to teach children how to be better men. It doesn’t matter if its a boy or a girl, they both should aspire that men be better.

Today I received a FoTF article by Candi Cushman called “Gender Confusion in your Child’s School”.

Ironically, she ends her article with this:

This illustrates why it’s a good idea for parents to pay attention and ask questions when “anti-bias” or “safe school” trainings comes to their child’s school. What are other signs that some of these influences might be seeping into your school?

What manner of evil ideas is she exercised about?

Gay marriage? Homosexuality? Transgender? Rampant casual divorce and family ruination?

Uh no, not quite. Just the first three.

Evangelicals, addicted to the rush of indignant cortisol certain topics stimulate, love to sit on high about things that are not family friendly. Few things are seen as threatening as those three topics. If you were to add promiscuity you’d have an Iguazu (Gesundheit!) sized flow of righteous cortisol.

She points out:

The training materials encourage classroom teachers to discuss this question: “How can we fight the traditional definitions of family?” [this “fight” relates to the sexuality issues I mentioned] Another question deals with “transgender” issues.

[my clarification]

How ironic. She shows both the pot and the kettle and yes, they are black. But she keeps the kettle in her backpack, and lets the pot bear her ire. She declares:

These topics put many teachers who want to respect the values of community parents in an uncomfortable, and even unfair, position.

The values of the community… What are those? Suggested in the piece would be things like traditional, stable Christian families.

If gays and lesbians were rpepresented at societal levels, either by students old enough to self identify as such, or by kids adopted or otherwise acquired by GLBTG parents, it would be well below 10%. A handful. So they perceive that the rest of the community has values that would be difficult to reconcile with those outliers.

The bottom line, we already know. Traditional Christian family values are hunky dory with more than 50% of the kids living in two homes and shuttling. Where the training being foist upon the teachers is ostensibly done so teachers and students are OK with alternative structures, Screwtape and Wormwood’s work regarding the family has been done for some time now. They do not worry about offending divorced parents and messed up families that result because there is nothing wrong with divorced parents and messed up families. Those ARE family values.

These kids will not challenge anything. less and less are Christian, so they will swill the anything goes Kool Aid. The kids from Christian homes will swill Kool Aid as well. It’s just a lite version. The ingredients list will not have listed GLBTG.


15 thoughts on “Train up your children, but not fully

  1. Empath:

    Perhaps at this point in time it is only 10%. Perhaps if our cultural decline progresses, the percentage will rise accordingly. I believe it shall. Of course this is only my observation and not scientific, but according to my perception of what I see daily, there are more homosexual folks out there; or perhaps the quantity is the same, but they feel less uncomfortable about not hiding it. Or maybe the Starbucks I read my kindle at is for some reason a haven for that clientele. (but there are more than a few university chicks that study there as well) (smile; a little eye candy hasn’t resulted in any spiritual indegestiveness)

    Speaking of broken homes. My son goes back and forth from my home to his mother’s. It is NOT IDEAL! I will continue to unceasingly mentally chasten myself for this.

  2. @Vasc

    Last I saw, only about 3% of the adult population practice homosexuality, but I think we can expect that to rise. 10% would be insane, and that’s what is insane about the extraordinarily outsized gay lobby/PR machine. But we bi-gress…

  3. @ Cane:

    Bi-gress. Funny. After reading more than a few of your writings I know you would agree that the gay lobby machine is fueled by the politically correct crew. What really irks me is the encouraging of very young children to “explore” their choice of gender identification. This angers and sickens me.

  4. Personally I’m not feeling it. I don’t think that you can validly find fault with an article because it does not address the chip on your shoulder. I know a lot of parents that would be shocked to find the kind of garbage that is being pushed under the guise of education at these schools, and so articles like this are necessary. If anything needs to be added to this article it’s the message that Christians should have long since pulled their kids out of the public school system. Then after that you might add something about if you can’t do that because you’re a single parent, and are a single parent because of a reason other than the death of your partner, you need to repent. But really, the issue of male headship and divorce is just off topic when discussing the push of homosexual acceptance.

  5. I gave this a bit of thought Empath and I think you may be missing something rather key. The first is that most of the people on staff at these ministries are in a sort of bubble. They are all married to their first spouse and most of the people on staff are as well.

    You know I’m fairly well acquainted with a number of families at one of the umbrella ministries you reference here and I can attest to the truth of that. First marriages, many kids, homeschoolers, etc. They know the stats connected to divorce and all that, but they are pretty removed from it. Only the ones who have children in public school have any inkling of the extent of the dysfunction in reality. A lot of them switch to public high school when their kids are teens and then they get a glimpse of the political push surrounding the LGBT agenda.

    So no, they aren’t sitting around looking for the most women friendly way to present a thing. That’s ingrained in their DNA as it is most all middle class Americans and comes naturally unless you were raised in a culture where the full brunt of feminism, promiscuity, and misandry has come to bear.

    The problem is that they really, truly believe that most Americans share their traditional family values and to the extent that a Christian home is a broken one, it’s probably the husband’s fault anyway and we all know that men aren’t listening to their mid-morning radio shows and make up maybe 1/5 of their mailing lists.

    You have to know your audience, and they do.

  6. Empath & Elspeth:
    I tend to think that the rise of homosexuality in our culture is because a relationship with a woman has become so wholly abhorrent to most men, that women are losing ground to male competitors. It’s a well-known phenomenon that men—when deprived of female society for any length of time—can turn to homosexuality. I think this is what’s happening in our society, but most of these ministries are afraid to acknowledge it for fear of ‘offending’ their female membership—so they put on a phony ‘tolerance’ for homosexuals instead.

    As another blogger recently said: ‘The state of the average male in the Anglosphere today is one of being trapped between the earthly hell of a ‘relationship’ and the living death of involuntary celibacy.’ A lot of men are simply not going to have the fortitude to resist homosexual experimentation under such circumstances. But again, the Churchians want to go into denial the moment the abysmal state of women is mentioned, and reflexively blame the man.

    Obviously an openly homosexual man doesn’t hate men or object to male sexuality. That puts him immediately two steps above the typical American female on the desirability scale.

    American women at some point are going to have to face these kinds of ugly realities. Every day their value to any real man sinks lower and lower. They can’t compete with foreign women; they can’t compete with pornography or sexbots; they can’t compete with homo- and trans-sexual men. And they can’t keep blaming it on the men.

  7. Elspeth.I’m not missing that at all. In fact, without re-reading my post, if I suggested they scheme how to be woman friendly I was not correct. There is no scheming involved. It is instinct, and it is the flawed worldview that you cite.

    Its in their DNA because they hear about things but choose to get back to the comfy chair as fast as possible.

    I dont get the last part. If they are playing to the female audience….and I agree they do….then how can that not be premeditated in terms of what they put out? That seems to contradict your first point, that they do not sit and plan woman friendly stuff.

  8. Booch:
    I wish it were that simple. It should be off topic to address divorce in the same piece as gay marriage. I agree. I also agree that these things are to be avoided for one’s kids. But you kiss the obvious. If they expended a fraction of the gay marriage opposition effort on the divorce problem it would be less ridiculous. But rushing kids away from the evils taught in public education while allowing them to steep in the churchian divorce culture is expending 90% of your effort on 1 % of your problem. Those kids deserve, first, an intact home, and the majority of them lack one. Many….MANY…homes broken are by the same women pulling the arms of kids out of socket dragging kids fleeing the gays. A little hypocrisy is in all of us. This is monumental hypocrisy. You would be able to see that if you were not passive about the issues that affect every second child.

  9. It’s not premeditated because it’s a response to the mail, comments, and questions they get from the radio audience. They don’t mean to favor women; it just works out that way. At least that’s what I believe.

    They think they’re being fair and balanced, or at least that they are distributing the time and messaging in the right proportions to the problems marriages and families face.

  10. Empath:
    “That’s a sad reality you paint,”

    Yes—it’s also noteworthy that the rise in male homosexuality is also trending with the rise in male suicides. Both come from the same cause; and the Churchian leaders won’t address either one. But even common sense should tell them that watching men drop out of society and turn to homosexuality and suicide is NOT because men don’t want to ‘man up’ and take responsibility. These are the actions of a demographic group that sees itself as having no future or any stake in society.

    Contrary to what a lot of Manosphere writers believe, neither celibacy or promiscuous sexuality is the best course for a man to follow. At this time, no ‘best course’ actually exists in regards to American women.

  11. Pingback: Rainy in Booch Paradise | Feminism is Empathological

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s