@neo said “I’m just glad it was less confusing back then, or I believe I would have had an even harder time.”

You have to wonder how much the whole self-esteem drive in schools, aka participation trophies, have to do with what we are seeing.

Everything, “Duh”.

This is just the “making kids feel ‘better’, regardless of whether this harms or helps them” that is inherent in the whole of “Mommy Mommy Mommy!” PostModern Liberalism.

It is the result of the complete rejection of the Paternal influence on child development in favor of absolute elevation of the Maternal influence.

And to any rational person, is just as bad, just as wrongful — morally, ethically, rationally — as the opposition is/was supposed to be (I doubt if it was ever as Paternal as is usually argued, but it is probably not unreasonable to ack that it was Paternally dominant until the 1960s)

What’s needed is an acknowledgement of the simply fact that both have value to the raising of a child. The result of raising a child with only Maternal influences is deleterious almost always (I am one of a limited number of exceptions, but my single mother was always more rational and sensible, and did not resist discipline-when-called-for — and even there, looking back, I can see places where some paternal discipline and oversight would likely have served me better than her approach).

We need to back off the swing of the pendulum to the opposite end and stop the pendulum around the middle and just let it “sit” there, swinging no more, with society encouraging both maternal and paternal forces in child rearing.

My own suspicion is that the maternal should be more dominant through to about 6-8, balanced from 6/8 to 12/13, and then more paternally dominant as they are prepared to become adults.

Note that “more dominant” doesn’t mean absolute or even close. we’re talking maybe 60-40 or 70-30, somewhere in that range. Even young children benefit from order and discipline as well as nurturing and support. And that does not exclude paternally supporting, too.

Translation:
“They are all confused as fuck about their sexuality”.

No, it’s not merely THAT, dude.

THIS one is about rendering CHILDREN incapable of reproducing before they have any reasonable notion of it.

This is beyond pernicious, as it takes away the capacity for parenthood before the children even gain any concept of adulthood at all.

The parents who allow this should be lined up against a wall and SHOT. As should everyone who advocates or performs these activities.

Not planning on acting on that notion, but I should not be on a jury trying anyone who has acted on it. I would turn them in if I knew they’d done it, but would not find myself necessarily able to convict if put in judgement.

Sorry, and I may be wrong, but this seems like exactly the kind of insane nutwittery that I would expect a Haaa’vaad grad to support.

I respect the technical (engineering, science) graduates of places like Harvard, but not the softer stuff — anything less than chemistry and engineering in terms of rigor should be assumed to be a font of liberal insanity.

Puberty wasn’t much less confusing back then, there just wasn’t reinforcement for the confusion. We weren’t bombarded with things like “how you feel is what you are”

How you feel is just how you feel, not what or who you are.

You have to wonder how much the whole self-esteem drive in schools, aka participation trophies, have to do with what we are seeing.

Securing capital and control… single/central/monopolistic behaviors. What better way than to normalize social dysfunction, sex ambiguity and gender dysphoria, and the wicked solution to relieve “burdens”. Pride parades less the lions, lionesses, and their unPlanned cubs playing in gay jubilee.

I have noticed that trend also.