Are We Training Cowards in Our Public Schools?

PopTartGunby Jerry Richardson   6/9/14
Are we training cowards in our public schools? Are we trying to turn our little boys into girls with feminized school policies? Is this an underlying contributor to the growing transgender movement?

Who will defend our society in the future if we continue with the mental-emasculation of little boys in their early school years?

In the coward category, what’s worse than being a coward?

Answer: Teaching someone else to be a coward.

What’s worse than teaching someone else to be a coward?

Answer: Installing and supporting a system that teaches multitudes of others to be cowards.

Make no mistake about it, many public schools across our nation have now installed and are supporting a systematic scheme for teaching young children (mostly boys) to be cowards.

This scheme is hidden under the rubric of “zero-tolerance”.

Now on the surface, if you don’t know any better, you would probably think, ‘oh, good, zero-tolerance means the school is not going to tolerate any dangerous behavior.'[pullquote]From where will we get the soldiers necessary to protect a free society given this sort of emasculated, panty-wetting, anti-self-defense indoctrination of our young boys in public schools?[/pullquote]

That was probably the initial intent; however as usual, good intentions collide with unforeseen consequences.  Then next, the policies with good intentions are commandeered by progressive educators and are used to indoctrinate young students under their control with their own progressive ideas.

One of the most obvious and dangerous consequences is the result of the progressive desire to indoctrinate the very young with the dangerous and cowardly notion that ‘guns are bad’.

Progressive educators in many public schools, in their fanatical drive to turn our society into a passive population of disarmed victims, have made it school policy that nothing even resembling a gun can ever, under any circumstance, be brought into a school.

To really comprehend how totally unhinged many fanatical, progressive educators have become with their grade-school anti-gun indoctrination, read the article (REFERENCE1) and view the picture of the young 1st-Grader who got suspended, suspended mind you, for accidentally bringing a toy gun to school, even though he voluntarily turned it in when he realized he had it with him.

This is an inexcusable act by a school administration who is mindlessly implementing a policy to bias the perception of a young boy (first grader) toward an essential and necessary weapon of self-defense (protected by our 2nd Amendment).  This administrator should be fired (but will probably be promoted).

From where will we get the soldiers necessary to protect a free society given this sort of emasculated, panty-wetting, anti-self-defense indoctrination of our young boys in public schools?

Not content with the idiotic rule of prohibiting even toy guns, these same progressive educators have made school policy that prohibits any image or likeness of a gun being seen or talked about by students (usually boys).

A young student (boy) was recently punished for chewing a pop-tart into the image of a gun:

“About a week ago, 7-year-old Josh Welch was suspended from his Maryland school for two days after biting a Pop-Tart into the shape of a gun:

“It was already a rectangle and I just kept on biting it and biting it and tore off the top and it kinda looked like a gun but it wasn’t,” Welch told Baltimore Fox station WBFF. “All I was trying to do was turn it into a mountain but, it didn’t look like a mountain really and it turned out to be a gun kinda.””  REFERENCE2

Recently a young 8-year-old second-grade student (boy) was punished for doing exactly what a teacher had told him to do in an art assignment.  The assignment was to look at clouds and draw what you see.  The boy saw the semblance of a pistol and drew a pistol.

He was punished by the teacher for doing what he was told to do.  God help us!  For a student to even imagine a gun in an art class: the event was made into a thought-crime by this unspeakable idiot of a so-called teacher:

“An 8-year-old second grader at Talbott Elementary School in Colorado Springs, Colo., is in big trouble for using his imagination after he said a cloud looked like a gun.

His teacher filed a behavioral report against the boy after he drew a picture of a gun, after the teacher told him to look up at the clouds and draw what he saw, reports CBS affiliate KKTV.  “Draw a picture of what you see in the clouds from your imagination,” 8-year-old Kody Smith told the television station about what the teacher has said. “That picture is a gun,” he continued, pointing to the gun he drew.  REFERENCE3

If you haven’t realized how utterly evil and rampant progressive ideology (politics and beliefs of most modern Democrats) is in today’s American society, you have undoubtedly not been paying attention.

© 2014, Jerry Richardson • (1886 views)

This entry was posted in Politics. Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Are We Training Cowards in Our Public Schools?

  1. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    This is about the emasculation of boys. We’d need to ask some of these low-information “useful idiot” teachers (mostly female) what they think they are doing. Most likely it seems perfectly natural to them to try to take the masculinity out of boys because the anti-male feminist world view so predominates in college and in so many other areas of life.

    It is just presumed that the way women think and operate is the desired state for men, and that being a man is something that, by nature, needs to be fixed.

    This is basically feminine fascism. I’m more than okay saying that men need to be sensitive to the needs of women. I’m not for absolutism either way. But the same goes for the women. And what we have now is a totally one-way street. And the men, most of them having already had their balls detached, will not fight back because they’ve been told that to do so is “misogyny” or some such bull crap.

    And, of course, this dependent worldview, in which the masculinity is wrung out of people, is a desired goal for the socialists. A self-sufficient people knowledgable of their rights, and willing to defend them, is the worst enemy of the would-be masters in government. They need dumb cattle. And our government school system is churning them out in herds.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Yes, I believe I’ve pointed out before the Thernstroms’ explanation of the reason for Jim Crow education — preventing (as best they could) blacks from learning about their civil rights. The only difference is that now they seek to do this to all the peasants, not just the blacks.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        the reason for Jim Crow education — preventing (as best they could) blacks from learning about their civil rights.

        This is precisely why Booker T. Washington is one of the Fellows of this site. He understood that the way for blacks to progress in society was to be useful, and that required getting a good education. And at the time, there were apparently a good number of black people (especially ministers and other leaders) who were even then looking to play the race card, to tell black people that someone else owed them a living. And if ever that were the case, it could said to be the case right after slavery — but it was still the wrong approach, and doubly so over 150 years after the slavery era.

        I know a black minister who is somewhat of a spittin’ image of Booker T. His sermons are not of the Pastor Wright variety (blaming whitey). He preaches (and, most importantly, practices) the idea that we are to pull ourselves up out of our sins. And he makes it one of the prime goals of his business to hire people who need a good job, who need to learn a good work ethic, and who need to learn a routine other than the destructive habits they have now.

        I very much doubt this pastor shares my politics. I haven’t asked. But what is more important is that he does not share the victim-based Obama view of race. He, instead, follows a biblical path.

        How much better we would all be if we stopped looking at people by the color of their skin (particularly in order to anoint them as victims) and instead treated all people as if they had god-given abilities, and god-given moral responsibilities, and then helped them (serving swift kicks to the ass when need be) to fulfill both.

    • David Ray says:

      You’ll be glad to know that here in TX, grounded common-sense holds sway. Two examples testify . . .
      Harrold, TX has had gun-totin’ teachers for a long time. Harrold is a sleepytown too far removed for cops to respond quickly, so teachers have had the option to carry. Most of ’em do.
      Need more?
      After Sandy Hook, Gov. Perry made sure any school could allow teachers to carry. The result was CHL classes filled all 600 slots (just one example) in record time, with future slots up for grabs. You gotta love Texas.

      Need more good news?
      Surprisingly Maine’s generous gun carry laws inadvertently corrected the idiocy of LA. and gave the cesspool of Detroit a Police Chief who announced that CCWs save lives.

      Schools aren’t schools anymore. They’re liberal madrassas.
      The Romeike’s answer is to home-school. Obama’s answer is to deport the Romeikes.

      • Timothy Lane says:

        I’ve been referring to the various group-studies courses as liberal madrassas for some years now. But you have a point that (to a lesser degree, fortunately) public miseducation serves the same purpose (hence liberal hostility to private education and home schooling).

        • David Ray says:

          As you surely know, Ann Coulter recounts a plethora of liberal self-contradictions.

          The Romeike family present yet another. Liberals love illegal immigration and cry themselves to sleep over anchor babies. “We mustn’t separate families!”
          Romeikes have an anchor baby also, and, as an added bonus, came here legally. The “anchor baby” argument seems to have suddenly lost it’s essence in that now Holder is proactively trying to deport them.

          I’m curious as to why B. Hussein has taken such adverse interest in them.
          Is it that they’re evil white European Christians? . . . or . . . Is it that they home-school? (I suspect both.)

          • Timothy Lane says:

            I agree with that final conclusion. Basically, they aren’t Barry Zero’s sort of people — generally non-white, generally anti-American and anti-Western (and anti-Christian) — so he has no interest in him. Note too his disinterest in the Marine caught in Mexico for taking a wrong turn, or Meriam Ibrahim in Sudan. But trading 5 terrorists (probably gratuitously, since the argument has been made that the Haqqani had no interest in such prisoners) for a deserter — for Barry Screwtape Obama, that’s a win-win.

            • David Ray says:

              Good points all around which leads me to ask . .

              Isn’t there someone in Iran being tortured for supplying us the intel on where Osama was? I heard he was shrugged off by B. Hussein for his efforts.
              I have no name, but considering the facts you just presented, it sounds true.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                Perhaps. Or you might be remembering the Pakistani doctor who helped us locate Osama bin Laden, was “accidentally” revealed by Obama sin laden (or perhaps Obama cum Biden), and now languishes in a Pakistani prison for the crime of exposing a Muslim terrorist while we reward them with billions in foreign aid.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        You remind me, David, that I would be more than happy with a President Perry.

        I hope to god that Texas doesn’t go libtard because of all the businesses that Perry is poaching out of California.

        • David Ray says:

          No so much that Perry is poaching, in that California is “giving it away, giving it away, giving it away now!” >:-)

          (If we go flaming, it’ll be on the vehicle of illegals getting amnesty. Some already vote and cash welfare checks, so amnesty would remove that spigot and cause an avalanche of liberal voters.)

  2. Kung Fu Zu Kung Fu Zu says:

    That was probably the initial intent; however as usual, good intentions collide with unforeseen consequences. Then next, the policies with good intentions are commandeered by progressive educators and are used to indoctrinate young students under their control with their own progressive ideas.

    I think it is the other way round. In my opinion, Tim’s Inner Party progressive educators such as Bill Ayers, intentionally developed such policies to indoctrinate pupils with a Leftist life view. They succeeded in having their educational ideas accepted as correct and let the Outer Party drones, who may be good intentioned but dim, do their work for them.

    Let’s also not forgot the absolute stupidity which has taken hold in many parts of our society due to an understandable wish to avoid being sued by some shyster trial lawyer. Rigid policies allowing no exceptions are easier to defend than the use of common sense and judging each case on its merits.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      I think it is the other way round.

      I agree, Mr. Kung. We should be way past the point where we feel it is de rigueur to supposed “good intent.” I do not suppose good intent, although I do understand that there are at least two tiers of influence.

      There are the Bill Ayers at the top who specifically want to undermine this country, and that includes indoctrinating our children against any habits, beliefs, and customs that are not of Cultural Marxist origin or serve that cause, including the generally masculine traits of independence and self-reliance — something personified by small arms.

      And then there is that second tier of useful idiots. The teacher who gets all bent out of shape regarding a Pop Tart gun is likely a Marxocrat of some type, or bent “Progressive.” No reasonable person would get bent out of shape by either a plastic toy gun or a pop tart. He or she belongs to that upper tier, or directly suckles from it.

      But I do believe there is the herd animal known as “the low information voter” or “useful idiot” who just is immersed in the culture, hasn’t a second thought about anything, and just goes along to get along and has no overt political agenda. This person has been immersed enough in collectivism (for what else is a union teacher?) to have made it a habit not to think for him or herself. And certainly it is often considered a dicey thing (inside or outside of unions) these days to have morals of one’s own that don’t originate from government.

    • Rosalys says:

      That was probably the initial intent

      More accurately, That was probably the initial step. Like Mr. Nelson, I am way, way beyond suspecting any good intensions coming from the progressive left. That’s why they call themselves Progressives, because they realized over a century ago that the only way to foist this crap on even a stupid populace was to do it incrementally.

  3. Jerry Richardson says:

    Is the ‘Female Way of Learning’ Destroying Boyhood

    [March 25, 2015] Rather than being appreciated for the future explorers, warriors and leaders they were designed to be, boys are viewed as defective little girls. Teachers want them to love reading and play nice, and no one wants to know where their hands have been. What is the real trouble with boys? Well, simply put, they are not girls.

    Boys are no longer judged by their developmental standards. We have lost sight of a very basic tenet of humanity, one that our ancestors understood since the beginning of time: girls are very different from boys. Boys with uniquely masculine strengths, once prized, are no longer valued. In fact, these traits of boyhood are considered dangerous, even pathological.

    Schools, steeped in the feminist agenda, have been instrumental in furthering what Susan L.M. Goldberg calls “gendercide” for some time now:

    Should it come as any surprise that the idea of medicating away behavioral problems would be associated with a feminist movement….Medicine is the solution to eliminating those pesky biological and psychological problems an ineffectual ideology fails to confront.

    She’s exactly right, and it all started in 1990.

    J.M. Stolzer explains that back in 1990, Carol Gilligan, a “difference feminist” and author of In a Different Voice, published a series of case studies that became widely accepted as fact. According to Stolzer, Gilligan hypothesized that it was the masculine bias deeply rooted in the American school system that was causing girls to suffer severely both psychologically and academically.

    Gilligan garnered unprecedented exposure and acclaim from policymakers and academia–all accepting her theory without question. The cultural Marxists did what Marxists do best–they created an underclass of victims. What more compelling victim to raise money and change policy for than sweet little girls?

    Women’s groups rallied and lobbied, and government agencies responded with funding, policy changes and programs. The “girl crisis” became a commonly held belief: girls are at a significant disadvantage in the American school system because a masculine bias tilts it.

    All this happened with under an ounce of peer-reviewed scientific evidence. Instead, it fit the narrative of what Thomas Sowell calls “the vision of the anointed”–and the paradigm shifted.

    Destroying Boyhood

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      That’s a pretty amazing quote, Jerry.

      Dennis Prager interviewed some author (I forget who) about his book in his second hour yesterday. The guy, to put it mildly, seemed nice enough but a bit two-faced and definitely emasculated. Dennis had to press him on the point, “But in your book, you say that females should be held up as the standard and should run things.”

      The author was clearly telling one story to one audience and another story to another. But he did acknowledge the general war on boys and men.

      Dennis took his usual common-sense approach that both men and women have certain parts of their nature that they must battle. Men must battle their propensity for violence and women their propensity for irrational emotionalism. Again, although this author seemed to be saying (to Dennis’ audience) that feminism had gone too far, he still seemed to reflect the idea that the female archetype was superior and that men had done little but make a mess of the world.

      And I hope you get a chance to listen to that interview in case you have Pragertopia. The author, again, seemed like a nice enough guy. But from the higher perspective of a conservative, clearly his balls were still in the proverbial vice. He was an emasculated male, afraid to death to say anything that might upset the feminazis. He was an Eloi all the way.

      This is a big problem in our society right now. If one is a female, one might think running the world and having your own way is nothing but a benefit. But there are a lot of downsides to marginalizing and emasculating men.

      Dennis pointed out another common-sense truth, that men have things to learn from women and women have things to learn from men. Again, he practically had to use the jaws-of-life to extract even a superficial agreement from this author on this point. Perhaps if Mr. Tarzwell can rewind from yesterday, he can tell us who the author is. I know he subscribes to Pragertopia where you have access to the archive of past radio programs.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      Christina Hoff Sommers has written a couple of books making similar points (in fact, one is titled The War Against Boys). Basically, femocrats (like other liberals) find some convenient study that supports their agenda, ignore any flaws in the study or contrasting studies, and then combine with their psittacine allies in the synoptic media to push the Cause. Nor do they ever consider the idea that the problem might finally be solved (no doubt reflecting the fact that they have no interest in genuinely solving problems) and thus one can eliminate the no-longer-needed solution.

      Thus, liberals may admit that someday pro-black racial discrimination aka affirmative action should no longer be necessary, but they will never admit that such a day has come. We see similar things with Title IX in college athletics (which has led to the elimination of many male athletic programs so that the number of males and females in athletics can be equalized). Similarly, even if there was a problem for girls in school, that clearly is no longer the case — but no liberal will ever react accordingly.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *