American journalist and blogger Sarah Hoyt was summoned to her son's school by an edu-ninny appalled that the six-year-old had written a poem hailing a female classmate for being "pretty" and having eyes "like stars". According to the ninny this was "sexual harassment" and, as he is a boy, his guilt was a given. Ms Hoyt hit the roof and saved one of her sons from sanction, but that was only her first experience of what misandrist feminism has wrought. She writes:
... Our younger son, a happy, gregarious child, who had some issues (he has sensory processing disorder. No, it’s not made up. Yes, it was causing him serious trouble in class as he moved to middle school, which was bigger and noisier) and a slight speech impediment, but never had trouble having friends or enjoying school. The incident in the playground three years before was well and truly forgotten (though I’ll note it was the same school).
Suddenly, he was being given detentions practically daily. We were told he was aggressive. We were told a lot of vague stuff that made no sense. Because the child is introverted and also one of those people who’ll fight his own battles, we couldn’t get sense out of him either.
It all came to a head when they called us – yes, saying they were about to call the police – because he had kissed a little girl against her will on the lunch line.
The problem was that while in the lunch line, he’d been talking to his Spanish teacher. Also, there were cameras in the lunchroom, filming every interaction.
We pointed this out. They said yes, but girls don’t lie about these things, so it must have happened another time. The words “we’ll sue you to your back teeth. I’ll make it my life’s mission to ruin everyone involved in this” were uttered. It was dropped.
But the incidents continued and escalated, and we became aware of what was happening though we only pieced the background of it together almost a year later.
The background was this: 18 girls, most of them children of the staff, had decided my son was – and I’ll use their term – “retarded” and therefore “dangerous.” (I’ll point out that the speech impediment was the ONLY reason they could even think so.) And they’d decided to make us remove him from the school/get the school to expel him by accusing him of “harassing them” ...
What follows is appalling and should be read by every mother of a boy. Meanwhile, the war on boys and men proceeds nightly in Australia, where "public service" ads, like the one whose freeze-frame is reproduced above, promote the mad feminist view that the problem with boys and men is that they are, well, boys and men.
Sarah's piece can (and should) be read via this link or the one below. The local incarnation of this insanity is beamed every night into your livingroom.
“I have wanted to be a cartoonist ever since I stopped wanting to be an actor,” Guardian doodler Andrew Marlton told an interviewer in 2010, and no doubt he would still like to be a cartoonist. You know, someone who melds wit and art like the late Bill Leak, John Spooner and the Herald Sun’s Mark Knight, lately copping it from the sorts who look to the Guardian for staying abreast of the latest trends in offense-taking.
In addition to those skills there is that other required quality: the bravery not to buckle and grovel when the lampooned and their allies strike back. Leak had that courage in spades. As Spooner puts it, Bill never backed down despite having his life “ruined by a combination of murderous Islamist threat and insidious defamation by the Australian Human Rights Commission."
Marlton has pursued a different course. Bravery? Atop this post there is an example of how he has most recently demonstrated an invertebrate’s notion of standing tall. A genuine cartoonist, Mark Knight, dared to depict a large, misbehaving black woman as a large, misbehaving black woman, so he must be a racist. Worse, as Mark works for Murdoch666, it’s all a conspiracy or something. As with his draftsmanship, Marlton’s command of words leaves much to be desired, although he certainly understands how Guardian readers and colleagues think. The word “think” used advisedly.
Not that we should be surprised, as Marlton’s cravenness is a matter of his own admission. In 2015 he explained to his Guardian readers (emphasis added)
I don’t depict Muhammad because it’s probably racist and also I don’t get to put my family and my coworkers at risk of being firebombed.
But easy targets, the ones whose followers do not believe in two-fisted devotions – one to grip your hair, the second to slice your head off -- well they’re ripe and worthy for a yellow dog’s scorn. Thus, while Muhammad goes undrawn, the Virgin Mary is held up to ridicule, as per the cover art (another word used advisedly) on his 2010 Christmas book.
Instead, when the topic is Islam, it’s kind words for the burqa. How a man who endorsed Julia Gillard’s hysterics about blue ties and misogyny could defend a symbol of oppression even most Muslims disdain is laid out in this video of Marlton courting his muse.
Last year there came another opportunity for Marlton to demonstrate, if not courage, at least collegial solidarity with a bona fide cartoonist, Bill Leak, tormented into an early grave by the odious likes of Gillian Triggs and Tim Soutphommasane. Let Tim Blair detail Marlton’s disgrace:
“Oh Bill. This is very sad,” Marlton posted on Twitter about his fellow Walkley award-winning cartoonist. “We didn’t agree on much, but he was a lovely bloke in person.”
Indeed he was, as Bill’s huge number of friends will attest. But that brief yet heartfelt farewell was too much for Marlton’s lefty followers, who slammed his kind tribute. Leak was a terrible racist and a homophobe and a misogynist who deserves no respect even in death, they raged. “F**k right off,” seethed one respondent to Marlton’s post, damning Leak as “a racist c**t.”
So what did Marlton do? Did he stand by his words? Did he argue with the hostile Twitter legions? Did he defend himself? Did he insist that in his personal experience Bill Leak was in fact a lovely bloke?
No, he did not. In a spectacular act of absolute cowardice, Marlton caved. He wimped it. He melted like the fragile little snowflake that he is.
He deleted the post.
Worse still, he then indicated his agreement with the piece of garbage who smeared Bill as a racist c**t.
“Yeah fair point,” Marlton wrote, of a man he’d just minutes earlier described as “lovely”.
Mark Knight should feel honoured to find himself in the same camp as Bill Leak. The fact that Andrew Marlton, coward, disapproves of his Serena cartoon is a priceless endorsement of its worth.
Marlton's latest attempt at cartooning can be viewed via this link or the one below. He'll probably win another Walkley for it. Yes, another.
-- roger franklin