Hey, Moms: Feminists Think They Know What’s Wrong With Your Children

Posted on | August 6, 2014 | 158 Comments

Dana Sitar is a 28-year-old writer who works as a barista in a bookstore coffee shop to pay her bills. Divorced and childless, she is perhaps not the role model of happiness and success to whom America’s mothers usually turn when they need parenting advice, but being a feminist entitles her to tell you what you’re doing wrong. Quite frankly, she’s decided that your parenting is too heteronormative:

Your Toddler Might Be Gay
. . . In a world where we’re finally making some progress on understanding non-straight identities as deserving of recognition, respect, and equal rights, forcing heteronormative assumptions on yet another generation is a huge step away from an inclusive and tolerant society. . . .
If we keep talking to that little girl for the next 10 years as if it’s her destiny to fall in love with a man (put a pin in the implied sexism and other layers of bigotry for another conversation), how will she react to herself and others if she finds herself attracted to the girls around her, not the boys? Or to both? . . .
How will she treat herself when she realizes she wants to kiss the girl down the street, not the boy next door? . . .
Not being a bigot is a huge first step, and I thank you for it.
But it’s not enough to quietly believe in equality. We have to actively practice tolerance and become aware of the presumptions we project. We have to let our kids see a world where their identities are all treated as normal and acceptable, regardless of the odds.

Perhaps you didn’t notice that she used the phrase “our kids,” although Dana Sitar has no children herself, so that her use of the first-person plural implies that this feminist coffee-shop waitress is asserting her proprietary interest in your kids. Yes, mothers of America: Your expectation that your daughter will grow up to be normal — even in 2014, about 98% of U.S. women are heterosexual — is a sort of prejudice, just one step removed from “being a bigot.”

Feminists condemn you for “forcing heteronormative assumptions” on your girls, thus impeding “progress” toward “an inclusive and tolerant society.” You’re a homophobic hater, mom. Your little lesbian toddler is already being oppressed — by you! (You’re probably showing her heteronormative Disney cartoons, aren’t you?)

How is America supposed to make progress toward an inclusive and tolerant society, if mothers keep brainwashing little girls into thinking it’s quote-unquote “normal” for them to like boys? If we are ever going to achieve the kind of equality feminist theory demands, mothers must put an end to this intolerant oppressive heteronormativity. Only then can your daughters be free to grow up as completely confused as Rollins College sophomore Bekki Charbonneau:

I am a queer woman. I flip-flop between identities. I have been “straight,” then “bisexual,” then “pansexual,” then a weeping puddle in the middle of the floor (which has occurred frequently enough to be considered an identity, in my opinion).
I often feel “not gay enough” to hang out in queer spaces; I feel like an intruder or a wannabe. I have had friends “jokingly” tell me that I should just “pick a side already.” And sometimes I actually contemplate it: I would just be happier being straight, and I wouldn’t have to deal with homophobia as frequently! Besides, some men are hot. I could deal with being straight.
But then I see a really pretty girl, so I think, “I’ll just be a lesbian. Many men don’t bother learning about social justice because of their privilege, and I don’t want to date someone I have to educate. It’s too much work. And some girls are just lovely.” . . .
I often get concerned about how many of the qualities I’m attracted to in a person are a result of growing up in a heteronormative, patriarchal society. I am often attracted to masculinity (either in cisgender men or in male-identifying persons, and occasionally in women with masculine characteristics). Am I attracted to masculinity simply because I have been raised in a society that places on a pedestal and reveres all things male?

Feminists must celebrate Bekki Charbonneau’s self-described “queer” sexuality, ignoring concerns about the schizophrenic tendencies manifest in such confusion. The difference between feminism and insanity is simply a matter of perspective.

By the way, mom: Seen any good cable TV shows lately?

THE ‘SEX TROUBLE’ SERIES:

Category: Feminism, Gays, Sex Trouble

Comments

158 Responses to “Hey, Moms: Feminists Think They Know What’s Wrong With Your Children”

Wombat_socho
August 6th, 2014 @ 11:34 pm

There’s been a series of guest cartoons about this sort of nonsense on Penny Arcade for the last week or so. Every bit as cringe-inducing as you imagine.
Wombat_socho
August 6th, 2014 @ 11:34 pm

I’m betting it’s #2.
Wombat_socho
August 6th, 2014 @ 11:35 pm

Sadly, no.
Wombat_socho
August 6th, 2014 @ 11:36 pm

But it’s hopelessly cisheteronormative and has to be replaced.
Mike G.
August 6th, 2014 @ 11:44 pm

I try to do my part, however insignificant it may be.
maniakmedic
August 7th, 2014 @ 12:18 am

I have yet to have anyone of the “born that way”/”God made me this way” persuasion manage to explain to me why being born with any one of a variety of mental illnesses or a predilection towards one or more of them is different than being born gay. Genetically inherited depression, for instance, rarely shows up before puberty (from what I understand coming from a family absolutely steeped in it) but you don’t see people beating the war drums to advocate for letting depressed people “be themselves.” That would be irresponsible at best. Same thing with schizophrenics. Of course, when I point that out, I get the “well, they can just take a pill” answer, which is delightfully condescending and proof that they don’t know jack shit about depression.

In my vast experience dealing with family members who have depression as well as dealing with it personally, taking a pill doesn’t make the depression just magically disappear (if it does, you are not taking an anti-depressant, you are taking ecstasy). Imagine if you will treading water in the middle of the ocean. You have nowhere to go and nothing to hang onto. You get swamped by swells and find yourself almost drowning. To people who think anti-depressants are a magic bullet, it would essentially be like a big cruise ship plucking you from the water and serving you a mai thai while also giving you a massage. In reality, anti-depressants act more like those little round life preservers. They give you just enough support to keep you from sinking, but you still have to put forth a shit ton of effort to keep from going under.

At this point I generally get derisive sniffs and the ever-so-mature (and scientific) “it’s just different!” responses. Good times.
Durasim
August 7th, 2014 @ 12:47 am

Orson Scott Card and Pat Buchanan made similar arguments to what you’re saying. Whenever one dares to compare homosexuality to innate diseases and defects, the homosexual advocates snarl with rage and shriek at you “BEING GAY IS NOT A DISEASE!”

I agree that just because something may be innate or immutable does not necessarily mean that everyone is obliged to pretend that thing is something good and benign and that everyone should support and affirm it. The only reason homosexuality was removed from the DSM list of psychological disorders was because of protests, threats, and disruptions at the APA conventions.

Of course, leftists and progressives also shy away from saying that things like schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, etc. are bad. Thinking that schizophrenia is bad is “ableism” they say, a kind of prejudice on par with racism. They believe in “neurodiversity.” A man with schizophrenia or Huntingon’s disease is not “sick.” He is just neurologically unique, as opposed to us “neurotypical” people.

And now, even supposedly respectable psychologists and psychiatrists are saying that pedophilia is also an innate, immutable “orientation” in some people. And a movement for pedophilia sympathy is now under way. After all, why should pedophiles be ashamed when they are “born that way”?
A1
August 7th, 2014 @ 2:10 am

I have never had children and yet have 18 years’ experience of parenting. Can anyone figure out this AMAZING paradox?
Sophie Lizard
August 7th, 2014 @ 4:32 am

Hahaha! Best comment so far. 🙂
Sophie Lizard
August 7th, 2014 @ 4:38 am

Your toddler might be gay. Your toddler might prefer frozen yogurt to ice cream. Your toddler might like science. Why does only one of these statements cause a pile-up of comments and barista-bashing?
Phil_McG
August 7th, 2014 @ 5:12 am

“Why does only one of these statements cause a pile-up of comments and barista-bashing?”

Because only one of them is imbecilic and, if left unchallenged, dangerous.

Toddlers are not “gay”, in fact they aren’t sexual beings at all. They’re tiny children and it’s creepy how “progressives” want to project their social justice fantasies on to little kids. Growing up is confusing enough without feminist harpies encouraging small children to identify with alternative sexual identities.

Leave those kids alone.

Nobody is bashing baristas. It’s a good thing that, having failed as a professional writer, Ms Sitar has found gainful employment commesurate with her abilities. The market works.
Phil_McG
August 7th, 2014 @ 5:17 am

I suppose you think having been on a plane makes you a pilot.
Phil_McG
August 7th, 2014 @ 6:02 am

I used to be a fairly liberal person. In some ways I suppose I still am. If two grown men want to be a couple, that’s up to them and they shouldn’t be persecuted for it. If a feminist decides to shack up with another feminist and bump uglies on a waterbed strewn with radfem literature, their choice.

But now we’re seeing all sort of sick freaks prancing out of the closet: men claiming they’re women with penises, bulldykes taking testosterone so they can grow wispy beards, furries, pangendered, polyamorous, My Little Pony pornographers, paedophiles.

And, not content to keep their private lives private, they are very interested in proselytising impressionable kids. In the name of “tolerance”, of course.

It’s like some sort of evil circus has come to town.

So maybe the repressive sexual mores of the olden days served a vital purpose of keeping a lid on this sewage. Maybe our society needs more guilt and shame and fear, and not less.
Zohydro
August 7th, 2014 @ 8:16 am

Hell, some of them don’t even do hormones believing that clothes alone make the “man” (or the “woman”)!
Zohydro
August 7th, 2014 @ 8:36 am

All these things and “gay” children too—all not-so-unintended consequences of “gay marriage”… And once one acquiesces to that, one must necessary also accept the whole “gay agenda”—which, to paraphrase Humpty Dumpty, means exactly what the gay activists choose it to mean, nothing more nor less!
EnoughFish
August 7th, 2014 @ 8:37 am

Isn’t he? I thought it was obvious.
Zohydro
August 7th, 2014 @ 8:44 am

THIS!
Zohydro
August 7th, 2014 @ 8:55 am

Arcus… Kevin Jennings (GLSEN, “safe schools czar”) and gay monkeys too!
HughdePayens
August 7th, 2014 @ 9:58 am

Because only one of those statements will lead to federal regulations banning calling little girls princess. Seems sort of obvious are you a barista?
NotAReaderYet
August 7th, 2014 @ 10:18 am

Because they hate the fact that other people are wildly, successful and happy.
Phil_McG
August 7th, 2014 @ 10:20 am

This is the endgame of radical feminism:

[The] end goal of feminist revolution must be, unlike that of the first feminist movement, not just the elimination of male privilege but of the sex distinction itself: genital differences between human beings would no longer matter culturally. (A reversion to an unobstructed pansexuality Freud’s ‘polymorphous perversity’ – would probably supersede hetero/homo/bi-sexuality.) The reproduction of the species by one sex for the benefit of both would be replaced by (at least the option of) artificial reproduction: children would born to both sexes equally, or independently of. either, however one chooses to look at it; the dependence of the child on the mother (and vice versa) would give way to a greatly shortened dependence on a small group of others in general, and any remaining inferiority to adults in physical strength would be compensated for culturally

– Shulamith Firestone, The Dialectic of Sex

So radfems look forward to a world where men and women are replaced by genderless drones and sex is for mutual masturbation instead of conceiving children. Horrific medical procedures would be invented so as to implant babies in males, and mothers and children as we know them would effectively cease to exist.

And all because some ugly women have Daddy issues.
Sophie Lizard
August 7th, 2014 @ 11:07 am

Can you explain the connection between gayness potential and calling someone princess? I must’ve missed that.

Nope, I’m not a barista. I’m one of those annoying women who isn’t a lesbian, has a family, earns a good living, yet persists in believing people of all kinds should have opportunities to be valued and content. 😉
theBuckWheat
August 7th, 2014 @ 12:30 pm

When liberals demanded free speech, good hearted conservatives gave in to their demands because free speech was good, even if they didn’t agree with what liberals wanted to say.

Then liberals demanded more sexual freedom and good hearted conservatives said this was not so good but we don’t want a society where government can police us in our own bedrooms, so we gave in.

When liberals demanded that equal rights for women must be enforced, good hearted conservatives thought that the goal was laudable even if the screechy rhetoric was, well, screechy.

Now it turns out that liberals don’t want to live in a world of free speech and sexual freedom for everyone. They demand that society adopt the sexual rules that liberals want and soon they will move to have government force the rest of us to approve of their deviant perversions. If you are a family in the business of photographing weddings or making wedding cakes, you already fear the wrath of the gay mafia and their government cronies when they demand that you prostitute yourself and be hired as an enabler of an act you find repulsive and insulting to your moral values.

Such people are already hard at work to force any children you have in public school to be properly instructed on all the approved sexual appetites and techniques. In some jurisdictions it will be almost impossible for you to remove your children from such indoctrination and recruiting efforts, or else you will face the wrath of people who in the extreme could have you arrested for abusing your children.

They cannot rest until the rest of us accept their deviant ideas about the very nature of humanity. It is a matter of self-identity with them. When you object, you are just a h8r, don’t you see?
Kristen Zubke
August 7th, 2014 @ 3:38 pm

if you’ve never been a weeping puddle on the floor I’d be willing to suppose you are on hard ass mother fucker, and I doubt your qualified to give out pyschological advice
Kristen Zubke
August 7th, 2014 @ 3:40 pm

Do you know anyone who is “wildly successful and happy?” no, seriously, do you?
Kristen Zubke
August 7th, 2014 @ 3:41 pm

I know this woman, and it is her last name, but you are so uptight to believe that everyone is a “Smith” or “Jones”…. but good one, so funny,
Kristen Zubke
August 7th, 2014 @ 3:43 pm

And just exactly would be the difference between masculinity and insecurity?
Kristen Zubke
August 7th, 2014 @ 3:47 pm

Keep your mouth shut about the “homosexuals” you’ve met, you obviously have no respect for them as individuals or you wouldn’t be airing their dirty laundry on the internet. The point being – when people (both hetero and homo) attempt to define you and demand you act a certain way, its hard to know who you really are, and be confident when no one accepts you. And you didn’t even read the article correctly, that was a quote from a bi-sexual who suffers from gender identity issues, heaven forbid someone attempts to understand your rabid anger management issues.
Kristen Zubke
August 7th, 2014 @ 3:50 pm

Get back to work you loser
Kristen Zubke
August 7th, 2014 @ 3:52 pm

Right, and in 10 years from now when that pricey degree having idiot, continues to move up in their company, or attends grad school, and is making 100k and the welder is still making 50, then we shall see who has the last laugh.
Kristen Zubke
August 7th, 2014 @ 3:54 pm

That’s right, because all these comments are the epitome of tolerant… texlovera… just so he knows, making fun of lifestyles you don’t understand, does not exude tolerance, but I see what your saying and agree people usually get out of hand when combating different beliefs
Kristen Zubke
August 7th, 2014 @ 3:57 pm

There is no such thing as a Queer agenda. You are the one with an agenda.
Kristen Zubke
August 7th, 2014 @ 3:59 pm

What would you have done if your son was the one claiming he was a princess?
Kristen Zubke
August 7th, 2014 @ 4:00 pm

haha you would always drag any conversation back to immigration! YOUR FAMILY ARE IMMIGRANTS! and my guess is they just showed up at ellis island and were let in
Jeanette Victoria
August 7th, 2014 @ 4:23 pm

You are living in an alternative reality. She has a worthless junk degree
Dana
August 7th, 2014 @ 4:26 pm

While it’s true that an armchair quarterback can be right, he is taking his decisions from that nice, comfy chair, and not in 1½ seconds with 307 lb of Ndamukong Suh about to turn him into mush.

It’s also true that parents can be “too emotionally wrapped-up in the events,” but they are also emotionally wrapped up in their children, period; they love their children, and see a far more complete picture of them, than can someone who is not their children’s parents,
Dana
August 7th, 2014 @ 4:27 pm

Go and have kids yourself?
Dana
August 7th, 2014 @ 4:27 pm

Go reproduce yourself?
Dana
August 7th, 2014 @ 4:28 pm

Go educate yourself? The list could be endless!
Dana
August 7th, 2014 @ 4:29 pm

Clearly, left-handers are meant to be Jews or Arabs, given how their languages are written. It’s us Westernized Christians who are normally handed!
Phil_McG
August 7th, 2014 @ 5:56 pm

Sitar’s awesome career plan:

http://youtu.be/w70RQLtdVeU
Michael Gebert
August 7th, 2014 @ 6:28 pm

I think I would have fixed sandwiches, since I do all the cooking.
dustbury.com » A conspiracy of northpaws
August 7th, 2014 @ 9:28 pm

[…] This post by Robert Stacy McCain has drawn over five dozen comments so far, of which this one by TheOtherAndrewB is my favorite: […]
Dianna Deeley
August 7th, 2014 @ 9:54 pm

Well, I’m pretty successful and reasonably happy. Will that do?
Wombat_socho
August 7th, 2014 @ 11:26 pm

Well, that’s one euphemism for it, I guess.
Wombat_socho
August 7th, 2014 @ 11:28 pm

NO U
Wombat_socho
August 7th, 2014 @ 11:30 pm

There’s a difference between tolerating someone while mocking them, and intolerance, which usually starts with beatings and ends in murder. I’m sure some of the folks from the Religion of Peace would be happy to explain it further.
Wombat_socho
August 7th, 2014 @ 11:32 pm

Go back to Northern Europe, you ignorant descendant of endemonised Anglo Protestant scum. And if you won’t do that, just go away. Here, I’ll help.
Durasim
August 8th, 2014 @ 12:08 am

So the brilliant barista commissar advises that parents should police their language and suggestions so as to shield their toddlers from pernicious heteronormative expectations and influences. That way, their toddlers’ true “orientations” can emerge as shimmering dragonflies in all their unadulterated glory, free of heterosexist indoctrination. It’s about letting your children “be who they are,” she says.

If a parent is actually receptive to this advice and thinks that heterosexual influences are something to be filtered out, then it means that parent probably subscribes to things like “heteronormative patriarchy” and “compulsory heterosexuality.” If a parent is actually a true believer in those things, then there is a good chance that parent is not agnostic or neutral about their child’s “orientation.” Parents who subscribe to these concepts would not want their children to be heterosexual.

If you actually believe that “heteronormativity” and “heterosexism” and the “institution of heterosexuality” are oppressive social inventions that cause so much evil and suffering in the world, then you would not want your child to be an agent and member of such evil “institutions.” If your child turns out to be a functioning and practicing heterosexual, then he/she is contributing to the power and perpetration of “hetero” whatever, according to the feminist formulation.

The barista says that children are so sensitive to hints that parents unwittingly communicate. If a parent genuinely believes that heterosexuality is some contrived hierarchy imposed upon the world and must be guarded against, you think children could never pick up that hint?
Funeral guy
August 8th, 2014 @ 1:30 am

Bekki is talking like a real man wouldn’t go running for the door ten seconds after she started in with the “social justice” bullshit.