Sooo....

This is coddling girls, but getting rid of the term toxic masculinity isn't coddling grown ass men?

Could you BE more hypocritical? LMAO

Remove the man:

https://therationalmale.com/2013/05/06/remove-the-man/

Bitchlasagna reads my column in the Pacific Northwest and drops toxic turds here reflecting her irrationality. She posts anonymously, though it took me about five minutes to find her picture, full name, and her knitting on Flickr.

She appears unhinged. In a previous comment, she said she'd sue my publisher to have my upcoming book removed from sale. She also said this: "I was raped by a female babysitter at the age of three. She made me fist fuck her."

No three-year-old is capable of "fist-fuck"ing a person.

http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2017/12/08/were_now_poison.html

To respond to this ridiculous comparison she makes here, my having a problem with referring to sociopathic or criminal behavior by a male as "toxic masculinity" when women also behave sociopathically and criminally is obviously different from the case here. It's about spreading man-hatred.

I'm going to do something I don't usually do and block this person because I just don't have the time to look for and deal with these sick comments from her, as I'm writing a big medical expose.

I feel sorry for this person

This seems fine to me. Both genders go to high school and first years makes sense as a term unlike other attempts to be inclusive. I don't see what this has to do with biology denial.

Ban the word "freshman"? That's sophomoric.

Or they could go with the term that was used for decades to refer to freshnen: "Fish."

Jessica, it isn't the term that is the issue. It is the stated reason for changing things. Call them 9th graders. Call them firsties. Call them George. The label isn't important. But claiming that changing from freshmen to first years will make women feel better is retarded. And if it was true it would make women seem retarded.

They should have gone with wedgie-bait. Never mind, still gendered, girls haze psychologically.

>(No better place than high school for a little biology denial --
>denying biological sex differences.)

They're not denying sex differences, they're acknowledging that both
male and female students are "freshmen".

Of course, if we need to change "freshman" to be more inclusive, it
follows that we similarly need to change the word "human". Maybe
"huperson". No, that includes "son". "huperoffspring"

"First Years?" So, now high school is to be like Harry Potter?

Thanks, Conan. That was my first thought, too; the Harry Potter thing. It's not enough that formerly red-blooded Americans are now "whingeing" about things, whatever that means, or that every redhead in the USA seems to want to be called a "ginger," a term that referred only to spices in this country prior to the HP craze.

I mean, they're good books, but we fought two wars to be shut of the Limey bastards for a reason, eh?

No objections to you banning bitchlasagna. I think this makes about the third time in the I-don't-know-how-long-you've-had-this-blog you've done this.

I think the other time was Richard something-or-other, and BOTU.

I never really paid much attention to the other two, so I'm not exactly sure what they did, but in bitchlasagna's case, it seems warranted.

Regardless of your decision to strike with the ban-hammer, I will address her comment. The term "freshmen" isn't demonizing an entire gender. For as long as the word existed, we've understood it to refer to both boys and girls. There is nothing in the term that insults or degrades women or femininity.

The expression "toxic masculinity," by contrast, suggest that there is something wrong with masculinity.

To respond to this ridiculous comparison she makes here, my having a problem with referring to sociopathic or criminal behavior by a male as "toxic masculinity" when women also behave sociopathically and criminally is obviously different from the case here. It's about spreading man-hatred.

This reminds me of a similar conclusion I came to about expressions like "mansplaining." It's a clever little ruse by feminists, defined by a certain YouTuber as when a man explains something to a woman in a condescending and rude manner.

By describing this practice as "mansplaining," the feminists have not-too-subtly suggested that only men are guilty of explaining things in a condescending and rude way, and only women can be on the receiving end.

When I was in college involved in the theatre, learning technical aspects of play production, I've encountered more than my share of female and male instructors who have been rude, condescending, even insulting, as they explain things to me. I simply assumed that it was the nature of theatre to encounter a lot of huge egos bumping into each other and that impolite, patronizing tone simply happened as tech work went into long hours of the night. It never entered my mind that one gender had the monopoly on it.

"I'm going to do something I don't usually do and block this person because I just don't have the time to look for and deal with these sick comments from her, as I'm writing a big medical expose."

Aww, dangit.

It probably makes sense to deflect an obsession, but I was looking forward to administering medicine to the dead.

Because I can sense effort and sincerity on the part of the regulars here, I have a large number of unused insults and euphemisms which might have been hilarious if applied to the truly deserving.

I think I can speak for the rest of us and say that we may have our differences, but we'll be damned if somebody new can just come in and fling.

As regulars here know, criticizing me is just fine.

I wrote her through her flickr page -- something brief, kind, and "we're done" -- and she wrote me back some long nuts email deeming me a "Cluster B" personality and a sex predator, blah, blah, blah.

Right.

Looneytunes. And, from what I've seen in these comments and emails, she's been obsessed with me and following me for perhaps 10 years and knows more about me than some of my friends. (Simply because why bore friends with the details about you, your car, etc., when you can talk about science, sex, and politics?)

In more productive news, I pulled the bits together and wrote some connecting tissue up front in this medical piece, and it seems more like a short book that needs some cleanup and less like an unholy mess with a bunch of bombshells woven through.

Just wait until they learn that third-year cadets, both the men and women, at West Point are called "Cows"!

Eventually they'll have to stop calling people by their names because individual names are not inclusive.

"I wrote her through her flickr page -- something brief, kind, and 'we're done' -- and she wrote me back some long nuts email deeming me a 'Cluster B' personality and a sex predator, blah, blah, blah."

I knew it! The worst kind of Cluster B is the one armed with a psychology textbook. So she's been following you for 10 years? Erm. That's stalker-ish. Take appropriate precautions.

Wait this is billed as a new language thing? I assure you the term "first years" was already au courant when I was a student in MA in the 90s.

...and she wrote me back some long nuts email deeming me a "Cluster B" personality ~ Amy Alkon at December 20, 2017 4:29 PM

Pot, have ya met kettle?

The irony is her calling you a Cluster B while exhibiting all the behavioral traits of a Cluster B herself.

Question: does your block prevent seeing your blog, or just commenting on it?

Observation: it isn't necessary to follow you in person for ~10 calendar years, as the blog goes back farther than that.

When I started high school, about two years before Janis Joplin died, 9th graders were referred to by the gender neutral term "fresh meat".

I also thought of Hogwarts... And think it's demeaning to call them 11-year-olds.

No three-year-old is capable of "fist-fuck"ing a person.
_____________________________________

Maybe the fingers weren't in a fist, exactly?

I admit I don't know just what age the following king was at the time, but from historian Richard Shenkman:

"...Everybody knows of the scandals involving many of the French kings, but it's always made to seem like it was their own fault that they got into so much libidinous trouble. In fact it may have just been the way they were raised. Take Louis XIII. As a small child they let courtiers kiss his penis. And when he became curious about the female body, he was 'allowed to poke his little fist up the vaginas' of his ladies-in-waiting..."

(Shenkman likely got that nine-word quote from "The Past and the Present Revisited" by British historian Lawrence Stone.)