Taxpayer-funded favoritism for one gender

There are approximately 58 gender IDs (NBC News story on Facebook). Yet government officials apparently feel comfortable saying that 1 out of these 58 is more important than the other 57.

Convicted (by NYT and Facebook) rapist and Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh: “I am proud that a majority of my law clerks have been women.” (NYT)

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg: “Justice Kavanaugh made history by bringing on board an all-female law clerk crew. Thanks to his selections, the Court has this Term, for the first time ever, more women than men serving as law clerks.” (Washington Examiner)

Here are the items that were featured in July 2019 at the front of the American Art Museum (Smithsonian, which receives $1 billion/year in taxpayer funds) gift shop:

What else did they have at the museum, you might ask? A 19th century sculpture of sleeping children embracing:

… and they also have another sculpture of two humans embracing. Before you look, see if you can guess to which of the 58 above-referenced gender IDs they might belong…

Louise Nevelson, famous for (a) being a great artist, and (b) explicitly saying “I am not a feminist” (she refused alimony, for example, and one pillar of modern feminism is getting regular paychecks from male former sex partners), is parked in the “Feminism in American Art” section:

And some works that don’t relate to gender ID at all, e.g., Nam June Paik’s Electronic Superhighway.

Circling back to the main topic… why is it okay to use taxpayer funds to promote one gender ID above the other 50+ gender IDs?

9 thoughts on “Taxpayer-funded favoritism for one gender

  1. It’s not one gender: it’s one gender at a time chosen accordingly to who has the most political power. Other 56 will support the strongest gender to extort the guiltiest one in the hopes of getting some on the loot.

    An old-time Soviet joke summarizes this really well:
    What is the Socialist Internationalism? it’s when all the nations unite to kick the Jews.

    • I wonder if anyone will rehash that joke at tomorrow’s meeting of the Boston Revolutionary Socialist Caucus? It could be perceived as being in bad taste, but this is a fun bunch:

      “Please join us at the regular meeting of the Boston Revolutionary Socialist Caucus. While the cats are away at the DSA National Convention the cats will play! We’re a caucus of revolutionary socialists within Boston DSA working on discovering and carrying out a communist praxis for the 21st century.”

      Right out there in the open with it then! Communist praxis! Get your communist praxis!

  2. Lesbian love is the best. It’s the only way 1 of them assumes the dominant male role & 1 has to win the bread out of necessity. They still don’t do engineering jobs, though.

  3. 2003. Well, a bit before then for me, alas. I intimated by 1998 that you’d probably be taking those pictures in the Smithsonian, but I didn’t know then what the time frame was. About 20 years.

    “Lakoff began his career as a student and later a teacher of the theory of transformational grammar developed by Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Noam Chomsky. In the late 1960s, however, he joined with others to promote generative semantics[5] as an alternative to Chomsky’s generative syntax.””

    I’m a little surprised Noonan didn’t know:

    “..There is the latest speech guide from the academy, the Inclusive Communications Task Force at Colorado State University. Don’t call people “American,” it directs: “This erases other cultures.” Don’t say a person is mad or a lunatic, call him “surprising/wild” or “sad.” “Eskimo,” “freshman” and “illegal alien” are out. “You guys” should be replaced by “all/folks.” Don’t say “male” or “female”; say “man,” “woman” or “gender non-binary.”

    …“Gender Neutral Pronouns—What They Are & How to Use Them.”

    He/She—Zie, Sie, Ey, Ve, Tey, E

    Him/Her—Zim, Sie, Em, Ver, Ter, Em

    His/Her—Zir, Hir, Eir, Vis, Tem, Eir

    Himself/Herself—Zieself, Hirself, Eirself, Verself, Terself, Emself…

    It’s all insane. All of it.


    Emphasis mine.

  4. By the way, ICMYI: my guess is that Ronald Reagan will never be used in any political campaign again by Republicans or Conservatives. He has now become the political property of the Left, and he did it to himself. I knew something was going on back in June when Gavin Newsom said what he said, but I couldn’t figure out exactly what it would be. It was a harbinger. I get those once in a while.

    From June:

    And then on July 30, just in time for the debate:

    • @Parson: Yup, already done. I disagree with most of it and it’s a horrible example for people to follow. Unless we want to believe in a world based on lies, more lies and propaganda, I’m not interested in it.

  5. And you’re a little bit off about Kavanaugh perhaps because you weren’t paying careful attention to the framing. But everybody else who didn’t want to see Brett Kavanaugh on the Supreme Court was, and it was no inconsiderable effort. It was framed as a job interview by mutual agreement in the media (and they say there’s no coordination! Bah!) Hence no due process was necessary. He wasn’t convicted of anything, because it wasn’t a trial. It was a job interview. Job Interview. JOB INTERVIEW! Get it?

    There are many others, you can find them.

  6. And slightly off-topic, but you remember Mike Bloomberg and how his latest gift made Johns Hopkins need blind in terms of financial aid? I recall you writing about that, so at least this is kind of “in the blog” somewhere. Well, he’s not running for President any time soon, at least as a Democrat, or a Socialist, which means his Presidential aspirations are over permanently unless he decides in the next few years to become a Socialist, which might happen!

    He’s pretty well plugged-in though, and he knew the Apology Tour was coming. And believe me, Philip, everyone’s going to be apologizing forever and ever. Mark my words on that.

Comments are closed.