Yeahhhh. I would definitely move.
That being said, I would hope I have more sway over my kid than her kindergarten teacher. But I get your point, moving would definitely be the better option
https://www.supernewsworld.com/Stop-Making-Me-Defend-Donald-Trump--We-The-Internet-TV-6531074.html
This is great.
3 Likes
Is this coming from teachers however? I see professors getting blamed for a certain climate on college campuses but I think you have students going there who already feel a particular way about how their feelings should be validated and expressed. If the colleges seem to be bowing to these students, who are probably at most colleges a minority if not a fringe minority, it is because of parents, lawyers and law makers.
In the case of the kindergartners, is it the teachers who demanded this be taught or is it coming from a few people who managed to influence the board of ed? Take those boys in CT who run on the girls’ track team, you would have a hard time finding anyone who thinks it makes sense or is fair. Coaches can’t say anything. Teachers can’t say anything. Even the girls they “compete” against can’t say anything. One girl was asked what she thought and she said she couldn’t say what she really thought. This is all about politics and lawyers.
2 Likes
Hey zecarlo, this is coming from the state of CA, and took effect in 2016.
Yes, the diversity and inclusion part must begin in kindergarten.
There is some variation among districts, but they must meet certain requirements. Yes, the example I gave of a K teacher is in some of the literature I’ve read, and I’ve heard it from parents as well.
Quote from NCR link above.
“Signed into law by Gov. Jerry Brown in 2015, the California Healthy Youth Act took effect in 2016 and requires that all public middle and high schools in the state teach “unbiased and medically accurate” sex education, including lessons on birth control, abortion, HIV and AIDS, as well as sexual orientation and gender identity.”
"In his March 29 memo, Ronald Wenkart, the general counsel for the Orange County Department of Education, told the county’s board of education that the law’s opt-out provision “does not apply to instruction, materials or programming that discusses gender, gender identity, gender expression, sexual orientation, discrimination, harassment, bullying, intimidation, relationships or family, and does not discuss human reproductive organs.”
Wenkart said parents who disagree with the state’s position on teaching about homosexuality, same-sex relationships or gender identity “may not excuse their children from this instruction,” though parents can still “advise their children that they disagree with” the content matter.
A spokeswoman for the California Department of Education declined to comment on Wenkart’s memo, but provided the Register with an excerpt from the law that clearly identifies the same subject matters listed in Wenkart’s memo as being exempt from the opt-out provision."
Hey, Norse. I just saw that yesterday. So funny.
I was thinking about posting it in the Things that Make You Chuckle thread but it’s better in this forum.
1 Like
Exactly. This isn’t something teachers just pulled out of their leftist asses.
Certainly not. The unions they pay their tribute, I mean dues to on the other hand seems like it’s on board.
So they’re supporting it with their dollars.
1 Like
The first time I heard about it, I assumed it was a teacher trying to be sensitive to a TG kid in her class, or maybe someone improvising when a kid asked a question. Not the case.
It’s not an easy issue. Most of us would teach our kids to be kind, not to discriminate against people for whatever reason. It’s just not clear to me that in order to do that, we need to use all the relatively new gender theory, identity politics language with kindergartners. It didn’t occur to me that as part of being kind, we’d be teaching kids that they can be any gender they choose.
Also, we have maybe 3 or 4 percent of students who are gay or lesbian. My children had gay friends by junior high. We have gay marriage. Ok. I think people are still getting their head around the idea that our sex ed curriculum might now contain some (I’ll sound like a prude here) fairly advanced topics for high school kids, IMO.
I guess I’m just not sure how much info is age-appropriate or necessary, and how far into gender identity we need to go in the public schools. I have some fundamental issues with the theory behind all of that, on multiple levels.
In CA, we have sex ed starting in 7th grade, and then sometime in high school, usually 10th. Fifth grade is mostly just physical maturation talk. The gender identity information is different. It’s often part of an anti-bullying lessons, etc…
I’ve said enough about this in a couple of other threads, so I’ll stop. There’s a current thread in Off Topic.
I feel like it’s fitting, haha.
1 Like
The fact that the Bolsheviks gave so much territory of Mother Russia was rarely mentioned in the USSR as it was swept under the carpet, the only exception being Finnish, Baltic and Ukrainian bids for independence (the latter unsuccessful) which the official Soviet history claimed were German financed.
Stalin was expecting a WW1-style war of attrition between Germany and Britain and France, with the USSR pouncing on the exhausted winner of that confrontation.
The USSR was toying with the idea of entering the war on the Axis side, but Hitler put an end to the talks.
Interestingly, from the invasion of Poland to the invasion of the Soviet Union, the orders from the Comintern to the Communist parties in countries occupied by the Nazis was to “help as much as possible the German war effort” and “report all saboteurs and resisters”.
For example, my grand-grandfather was rounded up by the Nazis after a tipoff from the communist party officials.
Oh no, no one from those countries wanted to fight the Russian bear. Hitler kept everyone in the dark about his plans to invade the Soviet Union, including Mussolini. The operation Barbarossa pretty much blindsided everyone - Bulgaria didn’t even declare war on the USSR, while Hungary and Romania did with serious misgivings because they were in a bind. The Hungarian prime minister even shot himself out of despair.
He was an interesting man. He foresaw Germany’s defeat and the aftermath. If only he hadn’t been an antisemite, he would have been remembered as a hero outside of Hungary and Poland.
Interesting tidbit. When the Tories cut the budget for sex ed, rates of teen pregnancy and STI infections decreased. Now, I’d be a fool to say that it is causative, but it does indicate it is nowhere near as important as surmised by its supporters.
1 Like
I wonder if the takeaway just could be that if the tweenagers think they are educated about sex, they can just do anything they want.
The exact opposite happened in Mississippi and other poor areas of the US. More education = less pregnancy.
Tinder and other hookup apps are driving STI rates up in adults though. So go figure.
1 Like
I was wise not to draw any causative inference then. It’s all too complicated to put down to a single thing
1 Like
Yeah. There’s 7 billion+ people around. We’re all here because our parents got laid. That drive can’t be educated away. Especially in teens whose brains aren’t done growing yet.
1 Like
More Sex Ed or education in general? Because there’s a strong inverse correlation between education levels and pregnancy rates.
1 Like
Ah my bad. I remembered an article about rates dropping but that was after schools shifted from “abstinence-only” to actual sex education.
Ironically all the articles about more money for sex ed actually didn’t drop rates. I guess once the kids know about consent, anatomy, contraception, diseases etc… more education isn’t necessarily going to change their behaviours. It’s a pretty simple subject really if you remove the cultural hangups we humans have around it.
1 Like
I remember how uppity people got when this originally happened. The irony of the ego.
P.s. I’m aware the 1 mil jobs was a BS number to begin with. But still.
1 Like