The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

Trigger Warning: @SkyJordan4 Says You Can’t Tell Her She Has ‘Daddy Issues’

Posted on | February 28, 2017 | 1 Comment

 

Sky Jordan is the “Sex and Relationships” columnist for the State Press, the student newspaper at Arizona State University, where she is a junior majoring in business communications. Like all aspiring journalists nowadays, Ms. Jordan is committed to eradicating First Amendment rights, by prohibiting people from saying things she doesn’t like:

There seems to be no end to the “daddy jokes” trend. These cringeworthy jokes appear on everything from Twitter to your favorite TV shows. While they might seem funny in the moment, there are real issues associated with the concept that need to be addressed.
This joke isn’t funny. It’s used as a means to mock and humiliate people. The idea of “daddy issues” is an abusive tactic used to manipulate and make light of a serious issue.
The concept of daddy issues originated from something called the Electra Complex, and later Penis Envy. It is basically the idea that women are jealous of men’s masculinity and therefore are unable to have healthy relationships with men.
Later, this morphed into daddy issues, which is the idea that if a person has a toxic relationship with their father, they will project all these issues onto their relationships, trying to find a substitute for a father figure.
Daddy issues jokes are generally used to demean someone’s relationship choices, and it is generally directed toward women, serving as a tool used to coerce and shame the target into doing what their partner wants them to do. . . .
Additionally, saying someone has daddy issues makes light of family abuse and it’s aftermath. Abuse isn’t funny, so we shouldn’t be joking about it.
By making daddy issues jokes, we effectively silence those who have dealt with abuse from their fathers. Joking about daddy issues makes victims of abuse even more reluctant to talk about their trauma stemming from an unhealthy relationship with their father.

So, now we must add the phrase “daddy issues” to the ever-lengthening SJW list of Things We Are Not Allowed to Say. Everything a feminist might possibly disagree with is “hate speech” now. Feminists disagree with basically whatever any male says, so they are in effect demanding total silence from males. Feminism is a synonym for “Shut up!”

As to the phrase “daddy issues,” I dislike it because it is used to describe so many different problems as to be almost meaningless. Its origins in Freudian psychology make it dubious as a diagnostic tool, and in popular usage, it just means “difficult” or “emotionally unstable.” However, if you spend enough time reading radical feminist literature, you find that crazy women are at least as likely to have “mommy issues.” We might cite, for example, Gloria Steinem, Andrea Dworkin and Karla Jay. In their autobiographical writings, they express admiration for their dutiful fathers, but disdain their mothers as flawed and unworthy of emulation.

The crude pop-psychology expressed by the phrase “daddy issues” is both an annoying cliche and in many cases inaccurate, yet these are not the arguments that Sky Jordan makes. Instead, she labels it an “abusive tactic” that victimizes survivors of “trauma.” Yet in its common usage, “daddy issues” has no such connotation. Typically, to describe a woman as having “daddy” issues is to say she’s acting like a spoiled brat, the Precious Princess who has been over-indulged or sheltered in an upper-middle-class background. Or it could refer to a woman whose parents divorced, so that she suffered from her father’s absence. And sometimes, you encounter a woman who has both aspects of “daddy issues” — the daughter of divorced, well-to-do parents who engaged in a contest for the affections of the Trophy Child. One weekend, she’s flying off to Florida with Dad and his new girlfriend, then she flies back home to Mom, who takes her on a shopping trip like they’re best friends. None of this is “trauma” or “abuse,” but it does tend to produce a bratty attitude, as such girls grow up to be women who expect Special Snowflake™ treatment.

That’s the kind of woman to whom the phrase “daddy issues” is most often applied and, insofar as it accurately describes a real phenomenon, there’s no reason its use should be prohibited. However, to repeat what I keep saying, Feminism Is a Totalitarian Movement to Destroy Civilization as We Know It, and the attempt to control language — to dictate what we can or cannot say, while creating a vocabulary of jargon phrases we are expected to use as substitutes for plain English — is a standard propaganda tactic of totalitarianism. Sky Jordan’s attempt to proscribe the phrase “daddy issues” illustrates how feminists use weaponized victimhood as a way to control language. We are required to believe that, because some women are survivors of parental abuse, it is necessary to banish “daddy issues” from our vocabulary.

“Abuse isn’t funny, so we shouldn’t be joking about it.” Right, and Hiroshima wasn’t funny, so we can’t make jokes about nuclear weapons.

 

Think of all the common slang phrases that might reference war, disease, murder or any other tragedy of human existence, and try to imagine removing all of these terms from your vocabulary. Think of all the subjects that would be off-limits to humor, if we were to allow these commissars of political correctness to make the rules. The only proper targets of any joke would be white male heterosexual Republicans.

What this campus “speech code” mentality does is to force everyone to mute themselves, tiptoeing around for fear of offending someone. In the process, our language becomes less vivid. Consider for example, something the Confederate Gen. James Longstreet wrote in describing commanding inexperienced troops at the Battle of Seven Pines, where the Union forces threatened the left of his line. The enemy’s fire, he said, “was exceedingly annoying, particularly with fresh troops, who were always as sensitive about the flanks as a virgin.”

You can’t say that! Why? Because (a) it’s probably “rape culture,” (b) virginity is a social construct of heteronormative patriarchy, and (c) how dare you quote a Confederate general, you racist!

Quite predictably, Sky Jordan’s columns include “It’s time to rethink the social construction of ‘virginity'” (Feb. 6) and “Rape culture is normalized across college campuses” (Feb. 27). We must understand this as a growing problem with contemporary higher education. Ideas that begin on the extreme fringe of radical feminism, discussed only in academic journals and Women’s Studies lectures, have a way of seeping out into the culture, like dangerous toxins oozing from a chemical waste dump. Here, let’s quote Ms. Jordan’s column about virginity:

While it is perfectly healthy to want to wait until you are in a committed relationship or married before you have sex, shaming others for not choosing the same path is hurtful.
This is exactly what our cultural view of virginity does. It praises those who remain “pure,” and shames those who choose to have sex before marriage.
“Just because something is a social construction doesn’t mean that is doesn’t carry a lot of emotional weight for people,” Dr. Breanne Fahs, Ph.D. in clinical psychology and women’s studies and associate professor at ASU, said. “However, purity is never a good thing. Whenever that word shows up we should get nervous.” . . .
“Who gets saddled with the discourse of purity? Women do,” Fahs said. “When women are trying to feel like they’re negotiating sexual purity, that is never good.”

Notice the source she quotes. Professor Breanne Fahs is author of a recent biography of Valerie Solanas, the original crazy man-hating feminist. Professor Fahs is also rather notorious for “offering bonus points to female students who grow their leg and armpit hair for 10 weeks during the semester. And male students . . . seeking extra credit are tasked with shaving every inch of body hair from the neck down.”

These are the kind of ideas propagated at taxpayer expense on university campuses now, and no one is allowed to disagree. Is there any professor at Arizona State who would dare voice any criticism of the feminist ideology promoted in the Women’s Studies program? Is there anyone on the faculty who speaks in defense of traditional morality? No, of course not. Our nation’s universities are now indoctrination centers where young people are forced to conform to the regnant dogmas of the radical Left. The faculty is to the 21st-century campus what the Central Committee was to the Soviet Union, and students are being trained to act as commissars scrutinizing everyone’s words and behavior for evidence of reactionary tendencies. Felix Dzerzhinsky could not have imagined a more efficient network of snoops and snitches than now exists on American campuses, ferreting out kulaks who dissent from the party line.

On the one hand, academia now resembles a Stalinist tyranny, while on the other hand, it’s like kindergarten where the students are treated as helpless children who need to be protected from Bad Thoughts lest they start crying because somebody says something mean to them. How does the regime of political correctness on campus prepare students to succeed in the cruelly competitive world of everyday life, where nobody gives a damn about your precious feelings? And speaking of “sex and relationships,” which are Sky Jordan’s alleged area of expertise, what are the chances that indoctrinating young people with radical feminism will prepare them to find happiness in normal relationships?

Oops! I just said something we’re not allowed to say anymore!

There’s no such thing
as a normal relationship

At ASU, we are constantly engaging with people who express captivating thoughts about innovative ideas. We are endlessly establishing relationships. These relationships are complex and difficult to define. In recognition, Facebook even has a relationship label “it’s complicated.”
Important relationships in our lives can be hard to describe to others because they may not fit into the narrow labels we feel obligated to put on them.
We understand “mother,” “father,” ”partner,” “best friend” and “acquaintance,” but often the relationships we have don’t fit into these boxes. It can be frustrating to try to express someone’s importance in our lives when the relationship isn’t recognized as valid.
We should stop sticking to strict labels and recognize the validity of relationships that are outside our established definitions and norms. By releasing our expectations of how relationships are supposed to look, we will be able to build a larger and more supportive community. . . .
Being defined as a “boyfriend” or “girlfriend” is an age-old norm. However, many times our romantic relationships don’t quite fit that category.
We may spend a significant amount of time with someone, have romantic feelings for them and may even sleep with them. Still, we may not necessarily want to define them as our partner. This isn’t bad or weird, it’s completely normal. . . .

Everything is now “normal” and therefore nothing is “normal” — or at least that’s what the sex and relationships columnist Sky Jordan believes, and nobody on the ASU campus would dare disagree. A student who tried to argue that heterosexual intercourse is normal, for example, would be accused of homophobia and probably “rape culture,” too. It is now almost impossible to say a word in favor of heterosexuality without some feminist shrieking about “rape culture,” while the LGBTQ crowd claims to suffer emotional trauma at the mere suggestion that anyone might actually enjoy what we are no longer allowed to call “normal” sex.

Your ideas of “normal” are not inclusive, you see. The words “mother” and “father,” for example, might be perceived as excluding those people who were conceived by lesbian couples through artificial insemination, or spawned via surrogacy and raised by two gay men. The words “boyfriend” and “girlfriend” assume that everyone is as either male or female, and you’re marginalizing those of “non-binary” gender identity. Also, all of these terms presume that people will pair off in monogamous couples, thus excluding polyamorous people. The approved terminology for describing human sexual behavior is subject to revision at any time.

“Queer” was once an insult, a forbidden slur, but now we have Queer Feminists teaching Queer Theory on university campuses, and no one is allowed to object to this. You must constantly update your vocabulary to maintain your status as politically correct. The smart thing to do is to say nothing. If you’re on a college campus and somebody asks you a question about sex, just invoke your Miranda warning rights. Lawyer up, and refuse to be questioned unless you have your attorney present, because anything you say can and will be used against you in the administrative disciplinary proceedings where sexual misconduct is adjudicated.

Nearly 30 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall, an Iron Curtain has descended on our university campuses, which are now as hostile to free speech as Kim Jong Un’s regime in Pyongyang. The amazing thing is that parents pay money to send their kids to these academic gulags.



 

Comments