Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Teen Magazines Launch the Pronoun Wars ^ | June 30, 2017 | Brent Bozell

Posted on 06/30/2017 5:18:42 AM PDT by Kaslin

Some of the most aggressive cultural propaganda today is coming from magazines for teenagers. The biggest crusade is about sex (yes, as soon as possible) and gender, where biology is completely negotiable, and incorrect or bizarre pronouns are nonnegotiable.

Teen Vogue Digital Editorial Director Phil Picardi declared: "For the past year or so, we've made a concerted effort to limit (and, eventually, banish) heteronormativity from all of our content ... we use gender neutral pronouns in almost all contexts. Our readers have appreciated the shift, and often help police our language."

Likewise, Seventeen magazine Executive Editor Joey Bartolomeo announced, "We want Seventeen to be a magazine where all girls feel represented and included, regardless of their sexual identities." The new orthodoxy was installed when the magazine posted a video on June 26 headlined "Trans Students Explain Why Pronouns Are Important."

First, a girl named Leah Juliett announces, "Just because I present more femme, doesn't mean I'm any less they/them." Another girl with the name C Mandler -- let's guess that using a period after C is a troglodyte move -- recounts telling her family over snacks: "Hey, guys. I'm non-binary. I don't have a gender."

Then the Facebook video stops -- for an ad break. Who says these propaganda lessons for children can't make a few bucks on the side? The advertisers included Hewlett-Packard, New York Life and WP Engine.

This is an "education" campaign Seventeen organized with GLAAD, and C Mandler is a GLAAD campus ambassador. CARTOONS | Bob Gorrell View Cartoon

Juliett explains gender deconstruction in astrological terms: "In my opinion, gender is a universe. It is a broad spectrum of planets and stars and sky that truly cannot be contained into a binary. ... So when someone identifies with a pronoun, they're essentially taking their little piece of that broad universe and identifying with that." By using the "correct pronouns," you are "validating that yes, you are right in your identity, and you are important, and we are respecting you."

Validation of this nonsense is mandatory. Gender identity can change on a whim, but it must be deeply honored at all times. The transgender and "genderqueer" humans seem to live in a higher universe, a self-selected class of victims of pronoun-abusing "society."

Mandler continues the tale of snack time with family. She proclaims: "My pronouns are they, them, theirs, and that's a nonnegotiable, and they were all kind of like, 'OK.' ... I know, personally, when I get misgendered by strangers, it's one thing, but it's especially painful when it's people who are close to you. So when my parents misgender me, it's a knife in my heart because they're the people whose opinions matter more to me than anybody else's."

Obviously, the family's opinions do not matter. Only her opinion matters, and only validation is acceptable. She cannot imagine the possibility that parents who brought home a baby daughter might feel pain at this rejection of biology.

Juliett even takes exception to the term "preferred pronouns." They're not a preference; they're like a vital organ! She says: "It's also not a preference; it's who they are. You need to use those pronouns! It's literally an extension of my arm or my leg. It's just as much a part of me as a vital organ. My identity, although you can't see it, still needs to be validated just as much as you would validate the fact that I have five fingers or five toes."

The last metaphor the gender deniers should use is body parts to suggest that their pronouns are as defining as fingers and toes ... or breasts and genitals.

TOPICS: Culture/Society; Editorial
KEYWORDS: 1percenters; corruptingaminor; gaynewsrooms; gender; genderpronouns; glaad; homofascism; homosexualagenda; indoctrination; kids; liberalagenda; media; pinkjournalism; radicalleft; sexpositiveagenda; teenmagazines; teenmags; unisex
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-53 next last

1 posted on 06/30/2017 5:18:43 AM PDT by Kaslin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

These dementos don’t get to put words in my mouth. I’ll call them anything I please, and triggers be damned.

2 posted on 06/30/2017 5:23:38 AM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

If Teen Vogue is going to push homofascism and neutral pronouns, why are they still pushing makeup, lingerie, dresses, and jewelry?

Stereotypical fashion trends for women. Get the young butch girls wearing pant suits like their leader Hitlery Rotten Clinton.

Pack on the pounds too. Why discriminate against the waterbuffalo gals?

3 posted on 06/30/2017 5:25:57 AM PDT by a fool in paradise ( Mr. Comey, did you engage in or know of ANY OTHER leaks?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

It is propaganda. Propaganda distributes just fine when it’s free. However, most people won’t pay for it. (Note the decline in newspaper sales and TV news viewership.) Kids today are a lot smarter than liberals give them credit for. Yes, they will win over a few, probably forty percent of their readership because of the IQ Bell curve. But those who are exposed and escape will be forever immune.

4 posted on 06/30/2017 5:26:40 AM PDT by Gen.Blather
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Sorry but their mental illness doesn’t dictate my reality.

5 posted on 06/30/2017 5:26:41 AM PDT by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin


6 posted on 06/30/2017 5:27:19 AM PDT by P.O.E. (Pray for America)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Homosexuals like their victims young. This teen magazine stuff falls into the category of “preparing the field”.

7 posted on 06/30/2017 5:29:48 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (Islam: You have to just love a "religion" based on rape and sex slavery.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Those “people” mags plumb the extreme left side of the Bell Curve.

8 posted on 06/30/2017 5:30:11 AM PDT by Da Coyote
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

“So when my parents misgender me, it’s a knife in my heart because they’re the people whose opinions matter more to me than anybody else’s.”

It’s a fidget-spinner of the mind. One more thing to obsess about as an angst filled youth. No wonder they take so many drugs, so they can enter a psychotic state, and obsess about more things. And then go on fakebook and go on and on about how each of their separate identities makes them so special.

Keeping up with the Joneses has shifted and now you’ve gotta try to keep up with the Janes too!

9 posted on 06/30/2017 5:31:20 AM PDT by a fool in paradise ( Mr. Comey, did you engage in or know of ANY OTHER leaks?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

No surprise that the womens magazines are pushing this crap:

From the sister of the founder of NOW

Marxist Feminism’s Ruined Lives ^ | 9-2-2014 | Mallory Millett

Posted on Wednesday, September 03, 2014 3:50:56 PM by servo1969

“When women go wrong men go right after them.” – Mae West

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy; its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” Winston Churchill wrote this over a century ago.

During my junior year in high school, the nuns asked about our plans for after we graduated. When I said I was going to attend State University, I noticed their disappointment. I asked my favorite nun, “Why?” She answered, “That means you’ll leave four years later a communist and an atheist!”

What a giggle we girls had over that. “How ridiculously unsophisticated these nuns are,” we thought. Then I went to the university and four years later walked out a communist and an atheist, just as my sister Katie had six years before me.

Sometime later, I was a young divorcee with a small child. At the urging of my sister, I relocated to NYC after spending years married to an American executive stationed in Southeast Asia. The marriage over, I was making a new life for my daughter and me. Katie said, “Come to New York. We’re making revolution! Some of us are starting the National Organization of Women and you can be part of it.”

I hadn’t seen her for years. Although she had tormented me when we were youngsters, those memories were faint after my Asian traumas and the break-up of my marriage. I foolishly mistook her for sanctuary in a storm. With so much time and distance between us, I had forgotten her emotional instability.

And so began my period as an unwitting witness to history. I stayed with Kate and her lovable Japanese husband, Fumio, in a dilapidated loft on The Bowery as she finished her first book, a PhD thesis for Columbia University, “Sexual Politics.”

It was 1969. Kate invited me to join her for a gathering at the home of her friend, Lila Karp. They called the assemblage a “consciousness-raising-group,” a typical communist exercise, something practiced in Maoist China. We gathered at a large table as the chairperson opened the meeting with a back-and-forth recitation, like a Litany, a type of prayer done in Catholic Church. But now it was Marxism, the Church of the Left, mimicking religious practice:

“Why are we here today?” she asked.
“To make revolution,” they answered.
“What kind of revolution?” she replied.
“The Cultural Revolution,” they chanted.
“And how do we make Cultural Revolution?” she demanded.
“By destroying the American family!” they answered.
“How do we destroy the family?” she came back.
“By destroying the American Patriarch,” they cried exuberantly.
“And how do we destroy the American Patriarch?” she replied.
“By taking away his power!”
“How do we do that?”
“By destroying monogamy!” they shouted.
“How can we destroy monogamy?”

Their answer left me dumbstruck, breathless, disbelieving my ears. Was I on planet earth? Who were these people?

“By promoting promiscuity, eroticism, prostitution and homosexuality!” they resounded.

They proceeded with a long discussion on how to advance these goals by establishing The National Organization of Women. It was clear they desired nothing less than the utter deconstruction of Western society. The upshot was that the only way to do this was “to invade every American institution. Every one must be permeated with ‘The Revolution’”: The media, the educational system, universities, high schools, K-12, school boards, etc.; then, the judiciary, the legislatures, the executive branches and even the library system.

It fell on my ears as a ludicrous scheme, as if they were a band of highly imaginative children planning a Brinks robbery; a lark trumped up on a snowy night amongst a group of spoiled brats over booze and hashish.

To me, this sounded silly. I was enduring culture shock after having been cut-off from my homeland, living in Third-World countries for years with not one trip back to the United States. I was one of those people who, upon returning to American soil, fell out of the plane blubbering with ecstasy at being home in the USA. I knelt on the ground covering it with kisses. I had learned just exactly how delicious was the land of my birth and didn’t care what anyone thought because they just hadn’t seen what I had or been where I had been. I had seen factory workers and sex-slaves chained to walls.

How could they know? Asia is beyond our ken and, as they say, utterly inscrutable, and a kind of hell I never intended to revisit. I lived there, not junketed, not visited like sweet little tourists — I’d conducted households and tried to raise a child. I had outgrown the communism of my university days and was clumsily groping my way back to God.

How could twelve American women who were the most respectable types imaginable — clean and privileged graduates of esteemed institutions: Columbia, Radcliffe, Smith, Wellesley, Vassar; the uncle of one was Secretary of War under Franklin Roosevelt — plot such a thing? Most had advanced degrees and appeared cogent, bright, reasonable and good. How did these people rationally believe they could succeed with such vicious grandiosity? And why?

I dismissed it as academic-lounge air-castle-building. I continued with my new life in New York while my sister became famous publishing her books, featured on the cover of “Time Magazine.” “Time” called her “the Karl Marx of the Women’s Movement.” This was because her book laid out a course in Marxism 101 for women. Her thesis: The family is a den of slavery with the man as the Bourgeoisie and the woman and children as the Proletariat. The only hope for women’s “liberation” (communism’s favorite word for leading minions into inextricable slavery; “liberation,” and much like “collective” – please run from it, run for your life) was this new “Women’s Movement.” Her books captivated the academic classes and soon “Women’s Studies” courses were installed in colleges in a steady wave across the nation with Kate Millett books as required reading.

Imagine this: a girl of seventeen or eighteen at the kitchen table with Mom studying the syllabus for her first year of college and there’s a class called “Women’s Studies.” “Hmmm, this could be interesting,” says Mom. “Maybe you could get something out of this.”

Seems innocuous to her. How could she suspect this is a class in which her innocent daughter will be taught that her father is a villain? Her mother is a fool who allowed a man to enslave her into barbaric practices like monogamy and family life and motherhood, which is a waste of her talents. She mustn’t follow in her mother’s footsteps. That would be submitting to life as a mindless drone for some domineering man, the oppressor, who has mesmerized her with tricks like romantic love. Never be lured into this chicanery, she will be taught. Although men are no damned good, she should use them for her own orgasmic gratification; sleep with as many men as possible in order to keep herself unattached and free. There’s hardly a seventeen-year-old girl without a grudge from high school against a Jimmy or Jason who broke her heart. Boys are learning, too, and they can be careless during high school, that torment of courting dances for both sexes.

By the time Women’s Studies professors finish with your daughter, she will be a shell of the innocent girl you knew, who’s soon convinced that although she should be flopping down with every boy she fancies, she should not, by any means, get pregnant. And so, as a practitioner of promiscuity, she becomes a wizard of prevention techniques, especially abortion.

The goal of Women’s Liberation is to wear each female down to losing all empathy for boys, men or babies. The tenderest aspects of her soul are roughened into a rock pile of cynicism, where she will think nothing of murdering her baby in the warm protective nest of her little-girl womb. She will be taught that she, in order to free herself, must become an outlaw. This is only reasonable because all Western law, since Magna Carta and even before, is a concoction of the evil white man whose true purpose is to press her into slavery.

Be an outlaw! Rebel! Be defiant! (Think Madonna, Lady Gaga, Lois Lerner, Elizabeth Warren.) “All women are prostitutes,” she will be told. You’re either really smart and use sex by being promiscuous for your own pleasures and development as a full free human being “just like men” or you can be a professional prostitute, a viable business for women, which is “empowering” or you can be duped like your mother and prostitute yourself to one man exclusively whereby you fall under the heavy thumb of “the oppressor.” All wives are just “one-man whores.”

She is to be heartless in this. No sentimental stuff about courting. No empathy for either boy or baby. She has a life to live and no one is to get in her way. And if the boy or man doesn’t “get it” then no sex for him; “making love” becomes “having sex.” “I’m not ‘having sex’ with any jerk who doesn’t believe I can kill his son or daughter at my whim. He has no say in it because it’s my body!” (Strange logic as who has ever heard of a body with two heads, two hearts, four arms, four feet?)

There’s no end to the absurdities your young girl will be convinced to swallow. “I plan to leap from guy to guy as much as I please and no one can stop me because I’m liberated!” In other words, these people will turn your daughter into a slut with my sister’s books as instruction manuals. (“Slut is a good word. Be proud of it!”) She’ll be telling you, “I’m probably never getting married and if I do it will be after I’ve established my career,” which nowadays often means never. “I’ll keep my own name and I don’t really want kids. They’re such a bother and only get in the way.” They’ll tell her, “Don’t let any guy degrade you by allowing him to open doors for you. To be called ‘a lady’ is an insult. Chivalry is a means of ownership.”

Thus, the females, who are fundamentally the arbiters of society go on to harden their young men with such pillow-talk in the same way they’ve been hardened because, “Wow, man, I’ve gotta get laid and she won’t do it if I don’t agree to let her kill the kid if she gets knocked-up!” Oppressed? Woman has always had power. Consider the eternal paradigm: only after Eve convinced Adam to eat the fruit did mankind fall. I.e., man does anything to make woman happy, even if it’s in defiance of God. There’s power for ya! Without a decent womankind, mankind is lost. As Mae West said, “When women go wrong men go right after them!”

I’ve known women who fell for this creed in their youth who now, in their fifties and sixties, cry themselves to sleep decades of countless nights grieving for the children they’ll never have and the ones they coldly murdered because they were protecting the empty loveless futures they now live with no way of going back. “Where are my children? Where are my grandchildren?” they cry to me.

“Your sister’s books destroyed my sister’s life!” I’ve heard numerous times. “She was happily married with four kids and after she read those books, walked out on a bewildered man and didn’t look back.” The man fell into despairing rack and ruin. The children were stunted, set off their tracks, deeply harmed; the family profoundly dislocated and there was “no putting Humpty-Dumpty together again.”

Throughout the same time these women were “invading” our institutions, the character of the American woman transformed drastically from models portrayed for us by Rosalind Russell, Bette Davis, Deborah Kerr, Eve Arden, Donna Reed, Barbara Stanwyck, Claudette Colbert, Irene Dunn, Greer Garson. These were outstanding women needing no empowerment lessons and whose own personalities, as well as the characters they interpreted, were strong, resilient and clearly carved. Their voices were so different you could pick them out by that alone. We all knew Rita Hayworth’s voice. We all knew Katherine Hepburn’s voice.

I dare you to identify the voices of the cookie-cutter post-women’s-liberation types from Hollywood today. How did these “liberated” women fall into such an indistinguishable pile of mush? They all look exactly the same with few individuating characteristics and their voices sound identical, these Julies and Jessicas! My friend, Father George Rutler, calls them “the chirping fledglings of the new Dark Ages.” The character of the American woman has been distorted by this pernicious movement. From where did this foul mouthed, tattooed, outlaw creature, who murders her baby without blinking an eye and goes partying without conscience or remorse come? And, in such a short little phase in history?

Never before have we heard of so many women murdering their children: Casey Anthony killing her little Caylee and partying-hearty for weeks; Susan Smith driving her beautiful little boys into a lake, leaving them strapped in the water to die torturous deaths; that woman who drowned her five children in the bathtub? “Hey, if I can kill my baby at six months of gestation why not six months post-birth, just call it late late-term abortion.”

I insist that woman always has been the arbiter of society and when those women at Lila Karp’s table in Greenwich Village set their minds to destroying the American Family by talking young women into being outlaws, perpetrators of infanticide, and haters of Western law, men and marriage, they accomplished just what they intended. Their desire — and I witnessed it at subsequent meetings till I got pretty sick of their unbridled hate — was to tear American society apart along with the family and the “Patriarchal Slave-Master,” the American husband.

We’re all so busy congratulating each other because Ronald Reagan “won the Cold War without firing a shot” entirely missing the bare truth which is that Mao, with his Little Red Book and the Soviets, won the Cold War without firing a shot by taking over our women, our young and the minds of everyone tutored by Noam Chomsky and the textbooks of Howard Zinn. Post-graduate Junior is Peter Pan trapped in the Never Neverland of Mom’s (she’s divorced now) basement. Christina Hoff Sommers says, “Moms and dads, be afraid for your sons. There’s a ‘war on men’ that started a long time ago in gender studies classes and in women’s advocacy groups eager to believe that men are toxic… Many ‘educated women’ in the U.S. have drunk from the gender feminist Kool Aid. Girls at Yale, Haverford and Swarthmore see themselves as oppressed. This is madness.”

If you see something traitorous in this, a betrayal of my sister, I have come to identify with such people as Svetlana Stalin or Juanita Castro; coming out to speak plainly about a particularly harmful member of my family. Loyalty can be highly destructive. What about Muslims who refuse to speak out right now? I was one of the silent but at last I’m “spilling the beans.” The girls have been up to something for years and it’s really not good. It’s evil. We should be sick to our souls over it. I know I am. And so, mass destruction, the inevitable outcome of all socialist/communist experiments, leaves behind its signature trail of wreckage.

So much grace, femininity and beauty lost.

So many ruined lives.

Mallory Millett resides in New York City with her husband of over twenty years. CFO for several corporations, she is a long-standing member of The David Horowitz Freedom Center and sits on the Board of Regents for the Center for Security Policy.

10 posted on 06/30/2017 5:37:23 AM PDT by a fool in paradise ( Mr. Comey, did you engage in or know of ANY OTHER leaks?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

When they have a pet dog or cat or horse with female plumbing do they think it’s a male?

Just because Barack Obama’s white grandparents gave their daughter a man’s name is no reason for the rest of the country to go berserk.

11 posted on 06/30/2017 5:40:06 AM PDT by Vlad The Inhaler (Best Long Term Prepper Tactic: Beat The Muslim Demographic Tsnami - Have Big Families)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

Gender identity can change on a whim, but it must be deeply honored at all times.

The whole subject is engineered to be a dynamic continuous test of political correctness that requires all people to pay constant attention to the constantly shifting sands of leftist whims and completely obliterate all opportunities for private individual thought.

Private thought — like private property — is theft.

12 posted on 06/30/2017 5:45:28 AM PDT by samtheman (The Germans -- having failed twice -- have finally hit on a way to destroy Europe.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #13 Removed by Moderator

To: Kaslin

She says: “It’s also not a preference; it’s who they are. You need to use those pronouns! It’s literally an extension of my arm or my leg.

uh, yeah, sure...females, smh...

14 posted on 06/30/2017 5:47:07 AM PDT by IrishBrigade
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: samtheman
Gender identity can change on a whim, but it must be deeply honored at all times.

I know someone who enjoys conversations like this:
She: "It's a nice day."
Me: "Yes, it is a nice day."
She: "What do you mean? It's cloudy! If it were nice, we wouldn't have these clouds!"
Me: "Yes, I guess it is sort of cloudy."
She: "Well, the sky is blue over there! You can't complain just because of that one cloud!"
Me: "I guess it's sort of mixed."
She: "Mixed? Are you crazy? It's a nice day!"

If gender identity changes on a whim, some people will simply be impossible to talk to. Which is fine.

15 posted on 06/30/2017 5:55:13 AM PDT by ClearCase_guy (Islam: You have to just love a "religion" based on rape and sex slavery.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

To paraphrase Dr. Jordan Peterson, requiring someone to use exotic or incorrect pronouns is coerced speech, disrespectful of the person you make say it. These oddball new pronouns are attempts to alter the language to suit politics similar to 1984 and liberals general abuse of language to suit politics (they and anything they do is love, everything else is hate, racism doesn’t include liberal blacks beating a white person for his privilege, etc).
Dr. Jordan Peterson also brought up how using a pronoun is NOT an act of respect. It divides the world - he or she or it - but that puts you in the same category as half the population. That’s not personal but rather impersonal. But using the term “respect, dignity” makes it an act of politeness and defines it as cruelty if you don’t. This is classic liberalism playing on care/harm and fairness morality channels, the only ones they recognize - if you don’t do what I want, that hurts me and is bad. Who else is affected, irrelevant.

16 posted on 06/30/2017 6:00:34 AM PDT by tbw2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin
The biggest crusade is about sex (yes, as soon as possible) and gender, where biology is completely negotiable, and incorrect or bizarre pronouns are nonnegotiable.

What if someone self-identifies as a cat or a parrot? Are we supposed to respect that?

17 posted on 06/30/2017 6:02:13 AM PDT by mjp ((pro-{God, reality, reason, egoism, individualism, natural rights, limited government, capitalism}))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: onkelosII

The Weather Underground engaged in partner swapping and even homosexuality.

Bill Ayers said that they were “smashing monogamy”.

Some of the women have since claimed that the sex they engaged in wasn’t always consensual, that they were coerced into it (rape).

18 posted on 06/30/2017 6:03:26 AM PDT by a fool in paradise ( Mr. Comey, did you engage in or know of ANY OTHER leaks?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy

It’s a nice day even during a rainstorm.

Get in a plane and rise above the passing clouds of malcontent.

It’s gonna be a bright bright sunshiny day...

19 posted on 06/30/2017 6:06:20 AM PDT by a fool in paradise ( Mr. Comey, did you engage in or know of ANY OTHER leaks?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Kaslin

One of the first rules of Debate: Win the definitions, win the round.

They already stole “gay” from us. Likewise “niggardly” (or course this is b/c leftartds are idiots who don’t know English).

We have to draw the line.

20 posted on 06/30/2017 6:06:21 AM PDT by freedumb2003 (The Civil Rights movement compared content of their character to skin color and chose the latter)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-53 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson