Conservative Woman readers

In response to Chris McGovern: Boys in skirts and the sinister side of the educational establishment https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/chris-mcgovern-boys-skirts-sinister-side-education-establishment/, Tricia wrote:

I have just pulled my youngest from the Year 7 PSHE programme. Two of the lessons are called ‘Who do you think you are?’ So 127 out of the 128 11-year-olds are about to start their journey of ‘self-discovery’ . . . by questioning if they really are who they thought they were.


56 COMMENTS

  1. Let us try and sort this one out.

    Before we can do that, let us look at the problem from different angles.

    From the Government’s view (both Conservative and Labour administrations).

    Government has to govern

    It realises that society is pluralistic – there are communities with competing world-views. Having abandoned Judeao-Christianity, and understanding that there can be no vacuum (for one cannot govern using a vacuum where there is nothing to use) it adopts the supposed neutral values of secularism.

    Its principal civil problem is Islam (the fatalism of the few nutjobs) resulting in terrorism.

    Having adopted the supposed neutrality of secularism as a major instrument of social policy it uses the pan-sexual agenda in an attempt to destroy Islam. The mistake it makes (adopting secularism) is to presuppose that all religions are the same. Having assumed that, it then uses the tool of OFSTED to select, simultaneously, to ask all our children to question whether they are boys or girls. Whether they are, without hormone blockers, going to be men or women. In adopting this strategey it hopes to destroy its chief target Islam and at the same time sacrificing Christians and Jews.

    It is unconvincing that it wants to destroy the latter two. However, the destruction of the latter two is inevitable only because it’s adopted a secular framework in its thinking.

    It is afraid of stating that the tenets of Islam is the problem – for fear of being accused of the indefensible charge of negative discrimination – in a pluralistic civil polity.

    The only way out of this is a return to the presuppositions of Gladstone, D’Israeli and Palmerstone. It is only a Judeao-Christian set of assumptions that can legitimately and positively discriminate against a destructive Islam (with its fatal kismet) that can permit Christian, Jew, Sikh and Hindu to answer the question: How should we live with each other?

    Only Judeao-Christianity can provide that answer. Pace, Magan Carta (1215); the English Civil War and 4th July 1776.

    The alternative is 1789 and the Bolshevik Revolution.

    Either bulldoze mosques or train our best students at Oxbridge to intellectually humiliate Islam. One or the other.

    Don’t destroy the thinking of your forefathers. Without them your destruction is assured.

    From the point-of-view of parents

    I have not met a single parent (of either sex) at work, in church nor on the street corner who wants his son or daughter to be homosexual, lesbian nor be injected by drugs to turn him into one or the other. This is what parents are afraid of.

    In this area of social policy, their view is this: eff off.

    • Well said, although long before any of this reaches its conclusions the economic system that has allowed this nonsense to thrive will collapse.

      • Economics is a result of a social system.

        Behind each social system is a thinking culture.

        Behind each culture is a set of beliefs, which are not readily apprehended by the senses.

        It is vital to discover the beliefs and subject them to cross-examination.

    • “I have not met a single parent… at work, in church nor on the street corner who wants his son or daughter to be homosexual [or] lesbian”
      I suspect in the narrow bigoted circles you circulate in, they would hate a homosexual offspring and wish it could be put to death. Bit like many Islamists really, there’s only a cigarette paper between you.

      • Not wanting your son or daughter to be homosexual does not mean you would hate him or her if that happened.

        • Allow me to follow JRM’s example and give a straight answer : I would not care either way if any of my children were heterosexual or homosexual. I would love them just the same and would not wish them to be different.

          Now, in the interests of fairness and balance, would you like to ask Umberland : how would he feel if any of his children were homosexual, would he treat them differently and would he secretly, if not publicly, hate the fact and feel a bit ashamed?

          • I’m sure all parents would. My question was would you positively seek that your child be so, in preference to heterosexual?

          • What bit of my reply are you too thick to read? For the benefit of the thick, I don’t positively seek either orientation, heterosexual or homosexual, I just love the child that comes along.

            Now, have you asked Umberland his question yet? Thought not. When you get round to it, let me know so we can all see that you’re being unbiased.

    • “I have not met a single parent (of either sex) at work, in church nor on
      the street corner who wants his son or daughter to be homosexual,
      lesbian nor be injected by drugs to turn him into one or the other.
      This is what parents are afraid of”.

      Ordinary sensible folk have ways of dealing with these things – look at the Cardiff school which in true enlightened fashion, has introduced transgender toilets. It transpires that the girls use one half and the boys use another, not mixed. Another social engineering experiment falling flat on its face.
      (BTW, glad to be back after some account issues, including changing to another ID and then getting my posts continually pulled for no good reason).

  2. Its brainwashing, our schools are no longer schools, Feminism infects the whole of our education system from infants school right up, all through to universities. Make all boys feel guilty as hell, and make all girls feel superior. Its rotten to the core and only makes the sexes hate each other.

    The demonisation of men is vitally important to feminism and it is a constant theme that underscores all feminist discourse and literature. Feminism could not survive without it because most modern feminist activism is based on advocating for special status for women, using the justification that women have traditionally been oppressed and that men are basically brutish oppressors by default.

    • The anomaly in your view is: why has feminism been in alliance with, first homosexuality and now male to female transgenderism?

      • If the aim of feminism is the destruction of masculinity, then it is logical to support the feminisation of men through homosexuality, it is also the logical conclusion of such an ideology to promote first the feminisation of the male mind then the destruction of the male body through surgery so that they adopt fully the guise of women.

      • Cultural Marxism, viewed over-archingly, seeks to break down traditional societies: their racial and/or religious homogeneity, the nuclear family, traditional gender roles etc.

  3. Hell has taken over the teaching profession: the children are told, by their RE teachers, that Islam is a religion of peace (it would help if only occasionally they would pick-up a history book); that corporal punishment is child abuse (really?); that the word ‘Negro’ is racist (it is in fact Portuguese); that gender is fluid (rather than fixed and factual); that the British Empire was mainly bad (whereas it was more nuanced than that); and that Management is the way to heaven (rather than the way to hell). I am sure it can get worse, such is the ingenuity of the Political Commissars and their law firms, who are not much good at teaching, or even managing for that matter, but are first rate at abusing their power as given them by Parliament. But that is about to change.

  4. Ideologically-driven teachers think they are people whose mission is to correct the errors of omission and commission to which their pupils are exposed at home by unenlightened parents.

    • I have been led to believe that PSHE was to instruct children on how we reproduce.

      Even at that moment in the history of teaching, it was never explained how they came to be in the classroom.

      We have now arrived in the lesson, where they teach our children the anti-thesis of the former.

      If we can answer the ‘how’ and ‘why’ then we can follow the instruction of our maths teachers: when you get a sum wrong then retrace your steps and discover the error.

  5. If I were a PSHE-induced snowflake, I would be suffering a crisis of self-esteem at my words being culturally appropriated by TCW and attributed to another 🙂

    Thankyou anyway!

    • Just interested to know where you stand legally on pulling your children out of lessons you disagree with. Honest question.

      • She didn’t even spend 10 minutes on Google to find out that the lesson wasn’t even about what she thought it was. She micromanages her children’s lives to a level encroaching brainwashing whilst at the same time telling everyone she wants them to think independently. As about as independently as the scientologists or the moonies then.

      • PSHE and RE are both non-mandatory subjects so there is no legal obligation for schools to teach them, or for parents to commit their children to them.

        The govt is pushing for PSHE to be made compulsory. I made it clear to our primary school that the day that happens is the day I go for home-education.

        However, it is possible to flexi-school i.e. use school for what you want and do the rest at home. All the while the law recognises parents as ‘primary educators of their children’, we have unlimited power really. Few parents realise this is the case.

  6. This being a conservative website, we need to take a look in the mirror.
    Many of us have been teachers or certainly allied in those middle class jobs and associated state positions.
    Mrs Thatcher ought to have learned early that she`d need a deep spade to dig out what the Left had long been planting and doing in their “secret garden”.
    But her efforts to deal with the educational apparatus were doomed, due to complacency, naivity and getting distracted.
    Since then it has snowballed into todays parody.
    We`ll need to work with Muslims now, it ought not to have got to this.

    • Yes, these issues have been gestating for some time. I think Margaret Thatcher was primarily an economic liberal – interested in business deregulation etc – so the social issues did not get the degree of attention which was required.

      Your last line will cause consternation among a lot of people. However, I think you are correct. Our opponents make opportunistic tactical alliances. We need to be smart enough to do the same.

    • Thatcher (understandably) wanted to introduce accountability to education and she did it by adding tiers of bureaucracy: Ofsted. She might have considered what would happen to the powers conferred once they were inherited by other less scrupulous politicians. Ofsted is now in charge of applying the government’s British Values programme. In other words, Ofsted has become an equivalent of the Saudi religious police, charged with imposing the orthodoxies of an aggressive secularism.

Comments are closed.