views and thoughts on topics, especially ones pertaining to christianity – with an emphasis on how most christians either ignore or discriminate against unmarried christians – and how christians have turned marriage and parenting into IDOLS and how there is no true support for sexual purity, virginity, or celibacy among christians – this is a blog for me to vent; I seldom permit dissenting views. I don't debate dissenters ————-
Twitter Really Doesn’t Want You Knowing About Those Hunter Biden Laptop Videos – they’re a Democrat Platform
Updates below: new material
First, Twitter (Link): locked down the New York Post’s twitter account over the Post’s coverage about Hunter Biden’s laptop, and as of last night, Twitter not only locked down my “sololoner” account, but several of my other Twitter accounts. Why?
Well, for a few days, mainstream conservative sites, such as Gateway Pundit and commentators under Hot Air blog posts about the story, published links as to where some of the content from Hunter Biden’s lap top videos could be viewed (which is how I found out about it).
Left-wing activists and the liberals who fear them love signs – the de rigueur accoutrement for today’s virtuous lawn is a poster (or two, or three) declaring that “In this house we believe science is real, black lives matter, love is love.”
….This effort to co-opt basic values, to claim they belong to just one political group, is false, ugly and divisive. It denies the humanity of those who dissent from the left’s aggressive demands. It silences debate by reframing complexities of COVID-19 and policing, race and American history to moral questions. You’re either good or evil.
This Manichaean strategy has risen to the fore because the ascendant left has sought to transform America, no questions asked. Just a few years ago, Democrats believed that we were an essentially good country that had made meaningful strides on race and gender.
They agreed that the police were a flawed but necessary tool for maintaining safety.
Before I paste in excerpts from that editorial by David Brooks below, I wanted to say a few words, and I will be pasting in any relevant links about the Brooks piece even farther below that.
I’ve been saying on this blog FOR YEARS many of the same things that Brooks has outlined in his essay.
Some of what I’ve been saying on this blog for years now includes:
that Christians and conservatives have turned Marriage and The Nuclear Family into idols,
that they have placed weight upon both that the Bible never did, and in the process of advocating marriage, these conservatives and Christians have marginalized the never-married, the divorced, the widowed and the childless or childfree among them, and this is wrong.
The Bible does not teach that marriage – or parenting – are going to “fix” society, or that being married or becoming a parent is necessary to make a person into a moral, upstanding, responsible individual.
If you’re a conservative or a Christian who keeps sounding the alarm about falling marriage rates, you need to accept reality for what it is: most people now are either single and childless by choice or by circumstance.
The United States is simply never going back to the June and Ward Cleaver family structures in mass droves that existed in the 1950s; (Link): so get over it already, and stop trying to punish or guilt trip anyone and everyone who doesn’t marry or have children.
Transgender Activists Terrorize Women’s Rape Crisis Center with Hateful Graffiti by Matt Margolis
There are a few reasons I cannot support Transgenderism across the board, this is one of them: the harassment of, and misogyny against, actual (“cis”) girls and women in the name of Transgender activism
(and, if the trans activist killed the animal mentioned in this report to nail the animal to the door of this shelter, that makes this person an animal abuser as well, and all animal abusers are absolute scum – edit; second report says a dead skunk was also placed at the shelter by the trans rights group – again, if you kill animals, especially just to make a statement over something like this, you are a demented pervert and sicko, and no, I do not support your “cause”):
Why would anyone vandalize a rape crisis center? What kind of a twisted mind would do such a thing? In this “brave new world,” where the feelings of transgender individuals trump commonsense and the privacy of everyone else, it appears that transgender activists have decided to oppose offering relief services for victims of rape, and shelters for women and children because of the strict “women only” policies that exclude men who claim to be women.
On Tuesday, Vancouver Rape Relief & Woman’s Shelter (VRRWS) tweeted images of vandalism left on their storefront — a space used for meetings, events, and support groups. ‘Kill TERFs,’ ‘F**k TERFs,’ ‘TERFs go home, you are not welcome,’ ‘Transwomen are women,’ and ‘Trans Power’ had been scrawled across the windows and door in black marker.
‘ TERF,’ for the blissfully ignorant, is an acronym that stands for ‘trans-exclusionary radical feminist.’ This is, of course, a misnomer.
Radical feminists are not interested in ‘excluding’ trans-identified people from anything.
What they are interested in is protecting certain spaces designated for women and girls.
Cross-Dressing Four Foot Ten Inch Pervert Disguised Himself As A Granny To Grope Young Women And A Schoolgirl
If this took place in the United States, all this perverted sicko (who is a biological man) has to do with American liberals is claim he is “identifying as a woman,” and the liberals would gladly allow him access to women’s / girl’s locker rooms and bathrooms, where he would proceed to sexually abuse actual women and girls.
But since when do most liberals (who claim to be feminist) actually CARE about the safety of girls and women? They do not – they’d rather protect Transgenders and Muslims at the expense of (cis / hetero) girls and women.
Anytime the safety or needs of actual, honest to god women come into conflict with the liberal favored pet groups of Muslims and Transgenders, the liberals always choose their pet group and throw women under the bus…
Some secular liberal feminists (and even some of the religious, progressive Christians) are fine with putting girls and women at risk if it meets the goals of their “progressive” politics.
A CROSS-DRESSING pervert who disguised himself as a granny to prey on young women has been caged for three years.
Paul Reed, who is just 4ft 10in, donned a coat, wooly hat and scarf wrapped across his face to take on his ‘old lady’ persona.
The 57-year-old then targeted two young women and a teenager outside transport stations and hospitals.
Reed, from Chatham, Kent, had previously been banned from chatting with females while with females while wearing the disguise after being convicted of sex offences in 2007.
Police are investigating a hit and run accident they consider a “bias incident” after a man allegedly followed the president of the South Seattle College Turning Point USA (TPUSA) organization with his vehicle as she walked to her car on Thursday.
The incident — which occurred following an argument between the two individuals over TPUSA signage on campus — resulted in the conservative student calling 911 after the man struck another vehicle while circling her with his SUV. The suspect is still at large.
The following by R. Dreher quotes generously from a piece by Abigail Shrier in the Wall Street Journal, and it echoes what I’ve said on my own blog here the past few years:
Liberals will always prioritize the needs, desires, and safety of all other groups above that of biological women (such as transgender persons or Muslims), so that (Link): biological women will be put into danger, but Liberals do not care about that. (Also: liberals (Link): hate biological white women above all.)
— start Shrier excerpt —
It has become rightly fashionable to ridicule the idea of “safe spaces,” places where adults can hide and sulk like children avoiding ideas they find threatening.
But women need actual safe spaces—not from intellectual challenge, of course, but from physical threat of harm from men.
As a biological matter, most women are physically outmatched by men. Men are stronger and faster than we are, though we’re better able to tolerate pain and tend to live longer.
Conservatives Are Rather Inconsistent About Morals and Women’s Sexuality – Regarding: The College That Considers Valentine’s Day Cards A Form of Sexual Harassment
This post contains one or two “adult” words, towards the bottom.
I am conservative. I’ve never been a liberal.
I do sometimes spot troubling contradictions or inconsistencies with other conservatives, however. This is one of those times.
So, I’m glancing at this editorial on a right wing site about liberals at some college campus possibly banning the handing out of Valentine’s Day cards, because they could be considered a form of sexual harassment by some students.
Here are excerpts from that page – I will address the problems I have with this below:
Students at the University of New Orleans should think twice about sending out any Valentine’s Day cards if they don’t want to risk being expelled for sexual harassment, according to a free-speech advocacy group.
by Brad Reed
Righter, a new dating website for Trump supporters who feel they’ve been regularly rejected by prospective mates for their political views, is now threatening to sue any Trump critics who try to join.
In an interview with the Daily Beast, Righter founder Christy Edwards Lawton said her website, which will officially launch later this month, will have “zero tolerance” for any liberals who sign up.
Liberal and Democrat Incivility, Harassment, Or Violence Against Conservatives or Republicans, 2006 – 2018
In light of the fact that a kook who appears to be a Trump supporter and liberal hater, (Link): Cesar Sayoc, was arrested today for using the United States postal service to send pipe bombs to various Democrats (including former presidents Bill Clinton and Obama), liberals and Democrats have been playing the blame game, and saying that Trump’s rhetoric is to blame.
So, liberals – especially those in left wing media – have been saying Trump is responsible for Sayoc’s behavior, and they are demanding that Trump apologize for what Sayoc did.
Excuse me, but for the past several years, especially since Trump was elected in 2016, those on the left have been going bonkers:
Doing things like forming mobs to attack people on the streets in large scale protests (they especially like to target anyone wearing a Trump supporting “M.A.G.A.” hat);
following Trump staff or other Republicans into restaurants to yell at or heckle them, while the left,
including but not limited to democrat politicians such as Maxine Waters, has a history of telling other Democrats to harass or commit violence against Trump supporters, Republicans, and/or conservatives (examples of this below).
I remember when George W. Bush (Republican) was in office, and later, when Sarah Palin (Republican) ran for office, liberals and Democrats were making jokes about those Republicans getting killed or being gang raped.
This behavior is coming from the same guys who scream and complain that all conservatives and Republicans are supposedly mean, intolerant, bigoted, and hateful.
Further, liberals and Democrats have the audacity to sit around today and blame the heated political climate solely on Trump? Oh no you don’t.
I left the Republican party a few years ago, but there is no way I could ever become a Democrat, largely because of the vile behavior by Democrats you see below, but also what grates on my last nerve even more is the staggering hypocrisy. Many Democrats and liberals often participate in the very behavior they say they see and hate in Trump, conservatives and Republicans.
Year 2006.
Story 1.
Nobel Peace Laureate, Betty Williams, Wants to Kill [Republican President] George W. Bush
Interesting comment at the bottom of the page by Miles Coburn:
What gets me is abortion was greenlit in society on the basis of “penumbras of privacy” on the part of women’s rights. And now, actual privacy concerns are being disregarded.
Now that he mentions it, yes: why do so many liberals insist that a woman should have a right to privacy regarding abortion (and not every woman gets one), but a lot of women use public bathrooms and restrooms, and these same liberals believe that biological women don’t deserve privacy? That a biological man’s rights (a man who thinks he is a woman) trumps a woman’s privacy or right to safety?
Zhana Vrangalova late last month wrote a piece for Them about the results of a study by two Canadian researchers that showed that the vast majority of cisgender people (those who identify as their biological sex) would not consider dating a trans person, and that is just another example of the discrimination trans people suffer.
Of 958 participants in the study, only 12 percent said they would consider dating a trans woman or trans man.
The Dating Swamp: How Finding Love in DC May Be Impossible For Young Trump and GOP Staffers – Liberals Hypocritically Insist You Date Transgender Persons But Not Trump Voters
(Disclaimer: I personally did not vote for anyone in the 2016 Presidential race, because I did not care for any of the candidates)
Wait. I’m confused.
Most Liberals insist other people date not based on personal preferences but on political correctness.
So, for example, pro-Trans activist Liberals yell and scream at CIS Lesbian women to date Trans women, even though many lesbians have made it clear they prefer to date other CIS (lesbian) women.
But now, liberals are not willing to date Republicans or Trump voters? They will supposedly date, or advocate that others date, people with penises who claim to be women, but they won’t date Republicans or whomever or whatever differing political persuasion? What?
Why Are Conservatives Forcing Mothers From Their Kids?
I am marginally still a social conservative, but as the months go by, I find myself drifting further and further away from it (though I’ll never be a liberal).
I was a stalwart social conservative for many years, but I’ve become more attuned to some of the hypocrisy or double standards contained within some socially conservative points or views.
One of the things I’ve struggled with the last couple of years is that Republicans (I’m an ex Republican) and social conservatives claim to be “pro-family,” yet, they often want to push through policies that cut off or limit families or kids or single mothers in some way.
Yes, I grasp that Republicans are for smaller government and want to cut expenses, but I don’t see how they can do that in the area of family benefits.
How can you claim to be “pro family” and to support children, and say that liberals are the evil anti-family types, when you keep promoting legislative material that wants to cut funding for families or kids? (Please see the “Related Posts” section at the bottom of this post for more.)
By the way. Many social conservatives and Christian conservatives fret, fret, fret that marriage and baby-making are on the decline in the United States – see for example links on my blog such as this one –
And yet, they penalize women who do become pregnant and give birth. If you are a Republican, Christian, or social conservative who thinks family is great, motherhood is great, and that women should have more children, then why on earth would you penalize women who do in fact give birth?
Shouldn’t you be willing to help all mothers – whether single or not – more? I don’t understand the hatred for mothers who need a helping hand from the very people who bray on and on about how horrible it is today’s culture supposedly disregards motherhood and the nuclear family.
Many Republicans, social conservatives, and Christians I’ve seen since I’ve been a teenager reading political columns, have regularly argued that children are better off if their mothers stay at home, rather than dropping them off at a daycare to hold down an outside-the-home career.
But as this editorial by Walthers explains, some of the Republican reforms of welfare has forced women into working outside the home, thus leaving their children motherless during the day.
How is it out of one side of their mouths that conservatives are saying it’s bad for women who are mothers to work outside the home, but then forcing them into the position to do that very thing?
Liberals Bully Porn Actress Online For Refusing to Film Sex Scenes With Homosexual Actors
(Links to follow.) Story as I understand it: a porn actress, Ames, who identified as bi-sexual, tweeted that she refused to film sex scenes with a male actor known to also film homosexual sex scenes with other male actors, because she had health safety concerns.
After she tweeted that, Liberal Social Justice Warriors piled on, some even sending her death threats about it. They really think a woman should have to have sex with someone, or a certain type or category of person, even if she does not want to.
The day after receiving all this online bullying, the actress committed suicide by hanging.
I thought liberals were supposed to be pro-woman, feminist, and supportive of a woman’s chose? No, some of them are not (the ones who are wholly sold out for supporting a Liberal Agenda vs. sincerely helping all women), as this story once again demonstrates.
A Response to the Editorial “America Needs a New Sexual Revolution” by Melissa Mackenzie
I guess Ms. Mackenzie drank from the Gender Complementarian Kool-Aid, or something like it.
The complementarian world is a world in which one is taught there are only two options concerning women (I know this because (Link): I used to be one myself for many years):
-either be and live as a traditional values person who believes all women are, or should be, passive, dainty, and delicate and should marry young and have children, or, -be and live as a bra-burning, man-hating, liberal feminist.
I present a third option, which is hated by some liberals (when I bring it to their attention), and it’s an option that is never even considered by other conservatives, which is as follows:
I am a right wing woman who rejects sexism, and finds fault in both the left and right wing on some women’s issues, but who also sees some merit to some arguments on either side, depending on the topic.
In this blog post, I am commenting upon this editorial on The American Spectator:
A foundation of the opening of this editorial rests upon a presupposition that, and to paraphrase my understanding of the author’s perspective:
“Everything that is wrong today in regards to culture, sex, marriage, dating, and women, is liberal, secular, FEMINISM, and feminism is EVIL! One can directly trace the downfall of American sexual morality to the feminism of the 1960s!!”
Such thinking is a common trope in about every right wing publication I’ve ever read on these subjects.
To that point, about feminism supposedly being to blame for all of society’s marital or sexual problems, I would ask you to read this off-site post, which is by a Christian (not by a left wing, secular feminist):
There’s a coarsening of relationships between men and women, parents and children, and people with each other.
// end MacKenzie quotes ///
I don’t think secular, left wing feminism was the start of the “coarsening of relationships between men and women” but is a response to it.
One can read the Old Testament of the Bible, which dates back several thousand years, to see men raping their own sisters, owning harems of women (in some cases, women having no choice but to be in a harem, or to be a concubine), and men committing adultery. There was no 1960s, American- style feminism around in Biblical days.
Liberal Native Americans, Racism, Identity Politics, Cultural Appropriation, and the Irish
Edit 3. My take away after being Tweeted at by people claiming to be Native Americans on Twitter is if you don’t agree with them on political matters (such as “cultural appropriation,” which is, yes, these days, closely aligned to an American liberal cause, not a “Native” one), they will accuse you of lying about your Native American ancestry.
In their world, you cannot be a conservative or right winger with Native American ancestry who disagrees with left wing talking points – only folks claiming Native ancestry who agree with liberals can be considered truly Native American. Good lord, this is pathetic.
I saw a news account (such as CNN or Time magazine) tweet an article about a Native American woman who was shamed and scolded by liberals for having worn a Native American head dress to a Halloween party contest.
I remarked above the tweet that this was nuts. I still think it’s nuts.
Here is the article, this one comes from The Blaze, and it mentions the same story:
A faculty member at the University of New Mexico was blasted for wearing a headdress on Halloween, according to KRQE-TV,
There’s just one catch: The faculty member is Native American.
–(end excerpt)–
DEFINING RACISM
Before I get to discussing that story in depth, I’d like to say I disagree with the liberal definition of “racism.”
Liberals define racism only to mean systematic imbalances wielded by whomever is considered to be in power in a nation. Therefore, your average liberal will argue that only white people can be racist because whites have all the power in the United States.
I say wrong, incorrect, and false.
My understanding of racism is that it denotes an attitude or belief set where a person of any skin color condemns or hates an entire other group of people (say, based on their inborn traits, such as skin color).
This means, for instance, that I regard black people who hate white people as being racist. White people are not the only people who are capable of being racist.
Racism to me is not about who holds or wields most power in a society, but rather is a heart-attitude.
ISLAM NOT A RACE
(Islam, by the way, is not a race. Islam is a socio-political belief set with religious undertones, but it’s not a “race,” yet I often see American liberals refer to criticisms of Islam or criticism of Muslim behavior as being “racism” or “racist.” Anyone can convert to Islam, including white-skinned evangelical Christians.)
NATIVE AMERICAN WOMAN CRITICIZED BY LIBERALS FOR WEARING HEADDRESS
Anyway, after I put my comments above the news tweet about the Native American woman being scolded by liberals and deemed a “racist” by them for wearing a Native American head dress to a costume party, someone on Twitter tweeted me about it, I replied, and he later shared my response on his time line.
There upon, several people, claiming to be Natives, took me to task over my views.
One such Native guy (or woman?) said something to me such as,
“I am skeptical and suspicious of people like you who claim Native American ancestry, yet I see no mention of you being Native American on your Twitter bio. Usually Natives declare their heritage with pride.”
There are several observations I have about this comment, a comment which is so ignorant and makes so many assumptions.
First of all, my SoloLoner twitter account is primarily one where I tweet about topics pertaining to singleness, dating, and marriage, and one where I occasionally opine about hypocrisy I see coming from right or left wingers.
My SoloLoner Twitter account is not one where I tweet about my family ancestry. If I bring up my family background on Twitter (or this blog), it has always been in the context of liberal absurdity over identity politics.
Secondly, there are a lot of things I don’t mention about myself on this blog, or on my Twitter biography or account, but that does not make them any less true about me.
For example, my favorite salad dressing flavor is Ranch, and I am left handed.
I have never before mentioned these things about myself on my blog here, nor do I mention them on my Twitter bio.
The fact that I don’t identify my favorite salad dressing or favored hand on Twitter does not mean I am lying about either one.
Thirdly, I am neutral or ambivalent about my family ancestry. I am neither proud nor ashamed to be partially Native American.
Having full-blooded Native Americans on both sides of my family is just another fact about me, like I am left handed, one of my favorite television shows is The Walking Dead, and I hated math in my school days.
Lastly, I am a right winger, I am a conservative, so am not beholden to, or in agreement with, the left wing penchant and insistence for Identity Politics.
I’m not one of these liberal types who binds up her entire identity in something like my skin color, my family tree, or sexual orientation.
COMMENTS FROM NATIVE AMERICANS ON TWITTER
One or two Natives demanded, DEMANDED!!, to know which “tribe(s)” I come from.
I find that funny, because several months ago, I was reading a page by a liberal Native American who was attempting to educate non-Natives about terminology, and according to this person, it is ‘racist’ or wrong to use the word “tribe.” According to that person, the correct term is “Nation.”
If you must know, both sides of my family inter-married with full-bloodedCherokee and Choctaw.
Part of my family also hails from the Republic of Ireland – some of my family also immigrated to the United States from other European nations, which I shall not list here.
All I will divulge is to mention my family tree consists of, but is not limited to, Cherokee, Choctaw, and Ireland.
I have no reason to lie about any of this.
This is one of the things that kills me about these yea-hoos on Twitter questioning my family tree, as though I am making any of it up.
What do I have to gain about lying about myself on this blog or on Twitter about being a never married, hetero-sexual, partially white, partially Native American, who is left handed, was raised Baptist but who now has doubts about the Christian faith, who loves The Walking Dead TV show, and who has a decades-long crush on movie actor Hugh Jackman?
On this blog, in the several years I’ve been blogging here, I have never, ever claimed to be liberal, Asian, Latina, a man, Democrat, homosexual, Russian, French, Buddhist, or black.
I have consistently said on this blog for a year or more that I am a never-married woman who is part white, part Native American.
I’m sure as hell not making money or friends or gaining fame or anything else positive by discussing things about myself on this little blog or on Twitter.
Nobody is sending me awards or money for sharing things about myself, such as I am part Native American, that I love Ranch salad dressing, and I suffered through college algebra.
Over a year or more ago, in various posts, I already mentioned on this blog I am part Native American and part Irish (among other things, which I won’t delineate).
Now, in November 2017, a few Natives on Twitter were questioning my authenticity on all this.
I don’t claim strong ties to, or deep interest in, my Native American background, or to my Irish ancestry, or my other European ancestry, for that matter.
What do they want me to do, spit in a plastic vial and mail it in to Ancestry.com or 23andMe.com for verification? Please. And, I don’t owe these people any proof or anything else.
As I told one liberal Native who was tweeting at me, I’d say I identify first and foremost as an American.
And I mean simply “American,” not one of those hyphenated formats, such as “Irish-American” or “Native American Indian – American,” or God help me, the long mouthful of “Irish – Native American – (insert other nations from where my ancestors immigrated) – American.”
Edit. I also received this comment from someone recently (link to her Tweet):
(from) heatherfeather@heather28df
Replying to @sololoner2
Natives have bern talking about cultural appropriation for a long time so when you label us as “liberals” you’re erasing Native voices.
(end quote)
I am partially Native American, and I’m writing my views on my blog here and on Twitter, so no, Native voices aren’t “being erased.”
Her voice, “Heather Feather’s” voice, is not being erased, either (I take it she considers herself Native American). She’s using Twitter to amplify her views, just as I am – nobody’s voices is being silenced or erased.
As I told her on Twitter, complaining about cultural appropriation and the like is a Liberal cause, (or is now synonymous with American political liberalism), and it’s been an American Liberal pet cause that has become trendy or popular the last few years.
Edit 2. I just blocked her. The obnoxious cow was accusing me of lying about my heritage, that I am just trying to “look or sound” cool.
Er, no, sweetie, as I’ve outlined above, some Europeans married and had sex with full-blooded Cherokee and Choctaw in my family (on the paternal and maternal sides) down through the years.
My god, I have no reason to lie about this sh-t. I cannot help who boinked whom in my family tree, either.
She wanted to know “what tribe” I am from.
As I told her:
BTW, “tribe” is politically incorrect. As a liberal, you should know that. Are you SURE you’re Native? I am doubting that you are.
(end quote)
That’s right, according to liberal Native Americans I’ve seen elsewhere online, the word “tribe” is not politically correct and is offensive to Natives, but here she is using it with me, while in the midst of dressing me down.
Liberals and Liberal Natives cannot agree among themselves on any of this:
The Native American name controversy is an ongoing discussion about the changing terminology used by indigenous peoples of the Americas to describe themselves, as well as how they prefer to be referred to by others. Preferred terms vary primarily by region and age.
As indigenous people and communities are diverse, there is no consensus on naming, aside from the fact that most people prefer to be referred to by their specific nation or tribe (terms which are themselves contentious).
Even if I did not have partial Native American ancestry in my family tree, my opinion would remain the same and be just as valid: there’s nothing wrong with non-Natives wearing Native American paraphernalia.
I don’t deem it “racist” for a non-Native to wear some piece of Native American clothing to a costume party. It doesn’t bother me.
If you’re a Native American who doesn’t like that sort of thing, I think it would be more suitable to use terminology such as “inappropriate,” “tacky,” or “insensitive,” but “racist”?
None of that is to say I’d necessarily agree that a non-Native person wearing something like a headdress is tacky or insensitive.
By the way, I wonder, do these rules apply equally to non-whites? If a black guy, a Latino, or an Asian, for instance, wanted to wear a Native American headdress, would it still be bad? Why or why not?
I just do not get worked up over things like white people (or black people, Asians, or others) wanting to wear Native American clothing.
I don’t take it as an offense.
COMPLIMENTARY
TEAM MASCOTS
As a matter of fact, I would regard a lot of what liberals negatively deem “cultural appropriation” to be complimentary.
The reason some football teams refer to themselves as “Red Skins,” or in some other Native American terminology, is because they like or admire Native Americans.
You’re not going to name your professional or college team after something you perceive as weak or stupid, like “The Fierce Boogers and Snots” or “The Wimpy Losers.”
I would take it as a positive thing if a football team wanted to use part of my culture as their name-sake or logo, not as a put-down.
LEFT VS RIGHT WING
I am curious – are there any Native Americans who are right wing or Republican out there?
Do most to all of them tilt liberal or Democrat?
Where do the left wing Native Americans get off dictating to everyone else, including those of us with Native ancestry who are right wing, who can and cannot wear Native American items? I don’t see where I, or others, have to bow to their opinions on these matters.
I don’t remember seeing any Irish people screaming and yelling about the Notre Dame Fighting Irish mascot and claiming it’s “racism” and “cultural appropriation.” If there have been, they are just as nuts.
THE IRISH
Speaking of the Irish.
Some native born and raised Irish are arrogant little jerk weeds about Irish ancestry.
They get their noses bent out of joint, or mock, Americans of Irish ancestry who are proud of their ancestry and who celebrate it.
When Irish-Americans celebrate St. Patrick’s Day in the United States, for instance, some of the Irish in Ireland ridicule them for it.
Native-born Irish refer to Irish-Americans with the derogatory term “Plastic,” which is short for “Plastic Paddy.”
Perhaps there are some native Irish who use that term with affection, but it’s my understanding that the indigenous use it as a negative term to describe Irish Americans who celebrate their ancestry.
… the stereotype has taken hold among many [Irish] – Irish Americans come from LaLa land.
The abuse comes mainly from Irish-born who feel that the only true Irish identity is that you have to be born on the island of Ireland.
…It seems our culture, heritage, and history is no longer to be prized but sneered at by many. It’s time to shout stop.
…It is an incredibly narrow perspective to believe that the only authentic Irish experience is to be born and live in Ireland.
(end excerpts)
I am neither proud of or ashamed of my European ancestry (which includes but is not limited to the Irish). I am largely “meh” about who is in my family tree.
To reiterate, I primarily consider myself American, not Irish / European or Native American.
However, considering the awful attitude some Irish have towards Americans with Irish ancestry, how would they feel, I wonder, if I repudiated the Irish in my family tree and said I’m ashamed of it and spit on it? Would that make them happy?
I would like to think that people born and raised in Ireland would be happy to see Americans with Irish ancestry openly proud of their Irish heritage. I don’t get the animosity or mocking over it.
CLOSING
I, of partial Native American background, do not get upset or offended by Non-Natives who’d like to wear Native American clothing or dress up as a Native American for parties, or who’d like to use Native American typology for football team graphics.
I also do not care if a Native American from Nation X would like to wear clothing items from Nation Z, nor do I consider any of this offensive, insulting, and it’s certainly not “racism.”
What began as a legitimate complaint has morphed into a handy way of being offended at something that should be taken as a compliment.
…But over time, the concept of cultural appropriation has morphed into a parody of the original idea.
We are now to get angry simply when whites happily imitate something that minorities do. We now use the word steal in an abstract sense, separated from any kind of material value.
…It used to be that we said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. But now there is new way to see the matter: Imitation is a kind of dismissal.
A push by a group of Native American activists to renew focus on the Washington Redskins’ name led to a bombardment of fake news in the sports world Wednesday.
The Rising Hearts coalition published multiple fake news stories purporting to be from Sports Illustrated, ESPN, the Washington Post, and others announcing the team’s name would become the Washington Redhawks instead of Redskins.
The group also created a Twitter account and a website for the new, made-up team.
“We created this action to show the NFL and the Washington football franchise how easy, popular and powerful changing the name could be,” said Rebecca Nagle, of the Cherokee Nation, who was one of the organizers.
“What we’re asking for changes only four letters. Just four letters! Certainly the harm that the mascot does to Native Americans outweighs the very, very minor changes the franchise would need to make.”
Native American activists have campaigned for years to get the Redskins to change their name, arguing the term is a racist reference to Native Americans that is offensive.
On Offering Up Prayers and Thoughts – and how it annoys Liberal Christians and Atheists
I had been thinking about doing a post about this subject for the past one to two years but never got around to it.
This has become a really big pet peeve of mine, and I see it all the time from liberal Christians, ex Christians, and atheists: criticizing people of faith who publicly offer up prayers or thoughts for people, especially after a national tragedy, such as a mass public shooting or a natural disaster.
….The more freedom we have, the more there will be very feminine and masculine subcultures too, and this might explain a great deal of recent political developments — in particular the campus identity politics movement and the alt-right.
The former is heavily female, while the latter is overwhelmingly male — in fact, not just male, but populated by men who seem to have difficulties with women.
…Single women tend to be politically very liberal, voting for the Democrats in huge numbers….
Generally speaking, the culture wars are far more intense between women because women have to make more sacrifices — whether children or career — and this inevitably influences their worldview.
One wonders if this teen magazine ever offers celibacy or virginity as choices for teen girls? Probably not. Liberals generally do not support a girl or woman’s choice to sexually abstain, but will mock it.
I don’t think the vast majority of women want to have anal sex with a man but are usually pressured into it by a boyfriend. Ditto on oral sex and other non-missionary style forms of sex. (But perhaps the article was aimed at LGBT individuals.)
If you are a teen girl (I cannot imagine why a teen girl would be reading my blog, but regardless…) you can do with your body as you please. If you do not want to have any sex at all, then do not have sex. If you do not want to have anal sex, then do not have anal sex.
Do not allow feminists, boyfriends, magazines, or Hollywood pressure you, shame you, or guilt trip you into doing sexual activity you feel conflicted about or don’t want to participate in.
If you have a boyfriend who is pressuring you to have sex or to engage in a particular sex act you’d rather not perform, please realize it is better to be single than to stay in a relationship with a guy who guilt trips you, uses threats of breaking up, or whatever, to get his way with you sexually.
If a guy does not respect your boundaries and wishes in the area of sexuality, break up with him! Please stop wasting your time with him. You will eventually get another boyfriend later. There is nothing wrong with being single.
The supposedly progressive piece, intended for teenage girls, refers to women as ‘non-prostate owners’, ignores the organ for female pleasure and fails to mention any potential dangers
Defining women by the men around them is an issue feminists have sought to address, and correct, for years.
…It would stand to reason that we could assume that in 2017 any work aimed at women would be sure to avoid such regressive patterns.
However, in (Link): Anal Sex: What You Need To Know for Teen Vogue, sex educator and feminist activist Gigi Engle managed to harp back to a time where women were defined by their relationship to men.
…Not only is any potential pleasure a woman may feel during anal sex reduced to the lack of male body parts (she is a “non-prostate owner”) but the clitoris, the actual hub of female sexual pleasure, has been removed. The lack of a male body part is the focus of what defines the female body, and what is actually there isn’t identified at all.
What is this teaching the audience of a magazine aimed at teenage girls? It tells them their identity is not “woman”, but rather “non-man”.
It tells them that should they consent to anal sex, their body is just a hole for the man to penetrate, and the part of their body that is most sensitive and reliable for the female orgasm is so irrelevant that it doesn’t even warrant a label.
It tells them that consenting to anal sex is not about their pleasure, but about their partner’s.
What it fails to tell them is the potential dangers of anal sex. The possibilities of fissures and tears which can become infected very easily due to contamination by faeces, severe enough to need surgery, or lead to anal abscesses which increase the chances of catching HIV.
By treating anal sex as an equivalent to vaginal sex, you increase the chances that your audience will not understand the potential damage they can do to their own or their partner’s body, and in turn increase their chances of becoming seriously ill.
Teen Vogue is defending its decision to publish a graphic tutorial to anal sex for children and teenagers – (Link): calling critics homophobic.
“This is anal 101, for teens, beginners and all inquisitive folk,” author Gigi Engle wrote in “A Guide to Anal Sex.”
… (Link):The original article did not include any references to practicing safe sex – but was later amended to include a line about condoms being “non-negotiable.”
“Here is the lowdown on everything you need to know about butt stuff,” the writer declared.
Parents across the nation became enraged upon learning that Teen Vogue wanted to turn their children in sexual deviants.
