Technology is being used to record what the powerful people of the world are saying, so the rest of us can find out what they really think, and plan accordingly. One of the largest corporations that caters to parents of young children is the Disney corporation. After we see some anti-child comments by Disney executives, we’ll look at some sex crimes committed by Disney employees against children.

Here’s the latest from Legal Insurrection.

Disney corporate president Karey Burke says:

“I’m here as a mother of two queer children, actually, one transgender child, and one pansexual child and — and also as a leader. And that was the thing that really got me because I have heard so much from so many of my colleagues over the course of the last couple of weeks, in open forums, and through emails and phone conversations. And I feel a responsibility to speak, not just for myself, but for them. To all of us, we had a — we had an open forum last week at 20th, where, again, the home of really incredible, groundbreaking LGBTQIA stories over the years, where one of our execs stood up and said, ‘You know, we only have a handful of queer leads in our content.’ And I went, ‘What? That can’t be true!’ And I — and I — and I realized, ‘Oh, it actually is true.’ We have many, many, many LGBTQIA characters in our stories, and — and — and yet, we don’t have enough leads and narratives in which gay characters just — just get to be characters and — and not have to be about gay stories. And so that’s been very eye-opening for me.”

Watch:

Disney executive producer Latoya Raveneau says:

“Our leadership over there has been so welcoming to like, my like, not-at-all secret gay agenda… I felt like… maybe it was that way in the past, but I guess, like, something must have happened… They’re turning it around, and then all that momentum that I felt, that sense of ‘I don’t have to be afraid, let’s have these two characters kiss in the background…wherever I could, I was basically adding queerness to the show, if you see anything queer in the show, ‘The Proud Family,’ nobody would stop me and nobody was trying to stop me.”

Watch:

Remember, the Florida bill bans teachers from discussing sex and sexuality with children under 8 years old. What Disney is saying is that they want teachers to talk to children under 8 years old about sex and sexuality.

I found a very interesting article over at the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal, that talks about some of the crimes committed by Disney employees with children.

Excerpt:

But behind its meticulously curated self-image, Disney has had a long-standing problem with child predators gaining employment within the company and exploiting minors. In 2014, reporters at CNN published a bombshell six-month investigation that discovered at least 35 Disney employees had been arrested for sex crimes against children, attempting to meet minors for sex, and possession of child pornography over the previous eight years.

Disney didn’t learn anything from the 2014 CNN story:

Even after the CNN report, Disney has seen a steady stream of employees caught in the dragnet for child predators. In 2019, police arrested a Disney cruise “youth host” for molesting a ten-year-old boy in the ship’s “Oceaneer Kids Lab” and, later that year, arrested another Disney cruise employee for raping a girl “over 100 times” at her home starting when she was 11 years old. (The charges regarding the molestation of the ten-year-old boy were later dropped when the parents did not want to bring the child in for testimony at trial.) Since then, three Disney employees have been arrested for soliciting sex with minors, two have been arrested on 40 total counts of child pornography, and four more were arrested earlier this month in a sting operation targeting “human trafficking, child predators, and prostitution.”

Disney’s attitude to sex crimes with children is to cover them up, and water down the laws against sex crimes:

In 2014, after a crewmember on the Disney Dream cruise ship was caught on security cameras molesting an 11-year-old girl, Disney authorities failed to report the crime until after the ship had left port, which allowed the man to evade arrest. When one security officer protested, Disney authorities allegedly told her to “keep your mouth shut” about the crime. Moreover, according to advocates associated with the International Cruise Victims organization, Disney’s trade-association lobbyists had worked to oppose and then water down federal legislation that would have required stringent safety and reporting protocols for sexual abuse on cruise ships.

Why think that their opposition to the Florida parental rights legislation is any different?

So what should we think of these “compassionate” Disney people, who want to promote a sexual agenda to young children, on the grounds of “inclusion” and “tolerance”? Well, what I think is that their “don’t judge” religion really means “don’t protect the weak from predators”. And that’s not surprising – secular leftism has always championed the rights of the strong over the weak. Survival of the fittest – that’s their religion. They don’t judge the predators because they want to be liked by the predators.

I’ve been thinking lately about how to measure how committed and capable a person is on issues of interest to conservatives. For example, on abortion, most conservatives will say, “I vote pro-life”. But I think a higher level of conviction and commitment is shown when a person can show WHY they are pro-life. And I’m not looking for feelings, here. I’m looking for handling scientific evidence.

So, when it comes to the abortion issue, the first step is to answer the question “what is the unborn?” And again, I’m not looking for an opinion here. I’m not looking for feelings. I’m not looking for what your parents, or your pastor, or your church choir says. I’m interested in whether a person can cite some scientific evidence.

Fortunately, we have first class scientists who have collected the relevant information for us, like Dr. Maureen Condic, She’s an Associate Professor of Neurobiology and Adjunct Associate Professor of Pediatrics at the University of Utah School of Medicine, and recently served on the National Science Board. She earned her Ph.D. from University of California, Berkeley, and has published papers in peer-reviewed journals.

One of her publications (PDF) explains what science tells us about the unborn. The title is “When Does Human Life Begin? The Scientific Evidence and Terminology Revisited”. A good paper to have available, especially if your opponent has nothing but purple hair, tattoos and nose piercings. But if you want something easy, you can just use quotations from a variety of embryology textbooks (PDF).

Like this one:

“Human development begins at fertilization, when a sperm fuses with an oocyte to form a single cell, the zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell (capable of giving rise to any cell type) marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual.”

Source: Keith L. Moore, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 10th edition. Philadelphia, PA: Saunders, 2016. p. 11

Don’t just use one quotation, use lots.

Also useful to know is what the unborn baby can do during the process of developing.

Here’s an article from the famous Cleveland Clinic that explains:

At the moment of fertilization, your baby’s genetic make-up is complete, including its sex. The gender of your baby depends on what sperm fertilizes the egg at the moment of conception.

And a bit further along:

Month 1 (weeks 1 through 4)

In these first few weeks, a primitive face will take form with large dark circles for eyes. The mouth, lower jaw and throat are developing. Blood cells are taking shape, and circulation will begin. The tiny “heart” tube will beat 65 times a minute by the end of the fourth week.

And a bit further along:

Month 2 (weeks 5 through 8)

Facial features continue to develop. Each ear begins as a little fold of skin at the side of the head. Tiny buds that eventually grow into arms and legs are forming. Fingers, toes and eyes are also forming.

The neural tube (brain, spinal cord and other neural tissue of the central nervous system) is well formed now. The digestive tract and sensory organs begin to develop too. Bone starts to replace cartilage.

The head is large in proportion to the rest of the body at this point. At about 6 weeks, a heartbeat can usually be detected.

Most abortions happen in the first trimester, and that’s why pro-lifers say “abortion stops a beating heart”. It’s definitely human, and it’s definitely killed in an abortion.

So, what’s the point of this post? I’m saying that if you are a conservative, then you have to be familiar with enough evidence to be persuasive to others who do not share your views. Not just on the issue you like, but on EVERY issue – social issues, foreign policy issues, fiscal issues.

It’s not enough for you to be happy that you have the right opinion about one issue. It’s not enough that the people around you like you because they agree with your “right answer”. You have to be able to make a case that crushes your opponent with evidence. Being a conservative isn’t about you or your feelings. It’s about the world out there – can you make a difference by being convincing to other people?

Of course if doesn’t feel good to have to learn how to talk about issues using scientific evidence. It’s work. And of course it doesn’t feel good to disagree with people about controversial issues. But you have to get used to not being ignorant and not being liked. I know a lot of feelings-based Christians who know a lot about sports, fiction, music, essential oils, and other nonsense. They want me to be satisfied that they have the right answer to questions like “Does God exist?”, “does military preparedness deter aggression?” and “does the free market system make people more prosperous than socialism?” But if I am out on a date with you, and I ask you these questions, I’m looking for more than the right answer. I want you to show your work. I want to see you demonstrate your ability to persuade people on the other side, either in your writings or in your discussions.

Don’t cry to me about how you can’t find a husband when you can’t do anything that a husband needs you to do. There is no path to impressing a conservative man that allows you to be lazy, ignorant and cowardly. I expect performance. If you are smart enough to get a college education and a job in the competitive private sector providing value to paying customers, (not a public school teacher or anything disconnected from reality, like that), then you are smart enough to be able to explain your views on moral issues and public policy.

In the past, I’ve written about how we need to get rid of no-fault divorce laws, if we expect men to feel comfortable about getting married. I’ve explained that men have seen what divorce does to other men, and to children. Some of us, like me, have read books and studies about it. And it’s a major reason why men don’t marry.

In today’s post, we’re going to look at an article in the far-left New York Times, written by a pro-abortion progressive feminist professor, who divorced her husband, making her two children fatherless.

What did he do wrong? Nothing.

Behold:

There was no emotional or physical abuse in our home. There was no absence of love. I was in love with my husband when we got divorced. Part of me is in love with him still. I suspect that will always be the case. Even now, after everything, when he walks into the room my stomach drops the same way it does before the roller coaster comes down. I divorced my husband not because I didn’t love him. I divorced him because I loved myself more.

[…]I made choice after choice to prioritize my career because I believed fervently in the importance of the work I was doing… [children of divorce] benefit because happier mothers are better parents.

[…] I knew that trying to force myself to subordinate my ambitions and always put our children first would have been impossible without lopping off a vital part of myself.

At the time of her decision, the children were aged 5 and 3! If she chose her career, that means that she was not raising them, during that critical first five years. Daycare is proven to be a poor substitute for the mother during those early years.

CafeMom notes:

No one is more acutely aware than Bazelon is of the many things she’s missed as a mother — things that have stuck with her through the years so strongly, she can mentally list them off one by one. They include, in her words: “My daughter’s seventh birthday, my son’s 10th birthday party, two family vacations, three Halloweens, [and] every school camping trip,” she writes. “I have never chaperoned, coached or organized a school event.”

My daughter’s seventh birthday was the worst. She cried… But I had a trial starting the next day, six hours away.”

Now, what about her statement about divorce being good for children, because if she is happy, then they will be happy? Many women believe this, and most communities for women affirm this. But is it true? What does the peer-reviewed data say?

Here’s a famous study (PDF) that says: (H/T Philip Greenspun)

This follow-up study of 131 children, who were 3–18 years old when their parents divorced in the early 1970s, marks the culmination of  25 years of research. The use of extensive clinical interviews  allowed for exploration in great depth of their thoughts, feelings, and behaviors as they negotiated childhood, adolescence, young adulthood, and adulthood. At the 25-year follow-up, a comparison group of their peers from the same community was added. Described in rich clinical detail, the findings highlight the unexpected gulf between growing up in intact versus divorced families, and the difficulties children of divorce encounter in achieving love, sexual intimacy, and commitment to marriage and parenthood. These findings have significant implications for new clinical and educational interventions.

Specifically: (I stole this from Philip)

Hardly any of our subjects described a happy childhood; in fact a number of children told us that “the day they divorced was the day my childhood ended.” … By the 25-year mark, the majority had decided not to have children.

No child of divorce in our study was invited by both parents, either separately or together, to discuss college plans. … Only 57% of the divorce group achieved their bachelor’s degree as compared with 90% in the comparison group. … Unhappy, [those who did attend college] settled for fields of study that were not their first choice, at lower ranked institutions than their parents had attended. It was at this time that one young person, echoing the emotions of many others, commented bitterly, “I paid for my parents’ divorce.”

The central finding of this study is that parental divorce impacts detrimentally the capacity to love and be loved within a lasting, committed relationship.

This study was actually made into a book, and I read it. That’s partly how I formed my views of divorce. In her column, the feminist refutes data like this with an anecdote. She “knows a person” whose experience refutes the peer-reviewed evidence. I don’t find that kind of self-serving rationalization very convincing. But it’s common.

By the way, I also read books about daycare when I was thinking about marriage, and I hate daycare, too. You would think that a smart feminist academic would read books about marriage, divorce and parenting like I did, and respect the evidence in her decision-making, rather than being led by her feelings.  I’m just a senior software engineer with 22 years of private sector experience. But I sure wouldn’t make decisions about marriage and children without reading books and studies first. What’s that old familiar saying in Information Technology? RTFM. Read The Freaking Manual. Engineers read the manual. Emotion-based people don’t.

Women may say to all this, “well, what do you expect me to do? Be unhappy with a bad man?” And the answer is – if you have children, then yes. The time to avoid getting married to a bad man is before you marry him. And we should teach women to disregard feelings, feminism, and peer approval. They should instead prepare themselves for marriage with chastity and sobriety, and choose men who are sober, chaste and have demonstrated commitment ability.

So here’s my conclusion. I don’t recommend that any man marry a feminist. If they are willing to kill their own children, then they are willing to abuse their own children with divorce. If they believe in same-sex marriage, then they don’t think that children deserve a mother AND a father. Don’t marry a secular leftist woman. You’ll pay, and your children will suffer.

Homeschooling moms who influence their neighbors, their local church, and the local university, for Christ, have the better end of the marriage deal. If I were married, I would trade places with my wife in a minute, if I could. It’s far more interesting to homeschool kids in great literature, science, economics, and computer programming, than it is to keep your mouth shut all day in an environment that is hostile to Christian convictions.