Men are the new "women"

Post Reply New Topic

My take on education in influenced by my own observations in one of it's urban inner cities, I don't think this is really even that ideological of an issue for most people as there are major proponents of elements of what I believe supported by some inner city Democrats.

How am I saying people don't have a right to free association?

A broad education doesn't mean anything if it doesn't effectively educate in anything and why do we need all these 'creatives' anyway? I argue we need a few less aspiring 'artists' and few more people capable of supporting themselves, whatever higher level of enlightenment they reach should be their responsibility. There are plenty of subjects that are interesting to learn about and there will always be people that will go out their way to learn things, it doesn't need to be subsidized. I learn about things because I have a natural curiosity about things, I am not sure this is something you can teach.

You are ignorant if you think we don't already have a tier education system, the city I grew up in was very poor but the suburbs that surrounded the city like a ring were anybody with the means lived and the options I had for school were very limited. The district had busing so all the schools got a share of an unworkable burden so transferring around the district which I did a bunch of times didn't really change anything since they are shared most of the same problems and none of them had anything as far as special education beyond basically babysitting. When everything available to you by the government is a bad option then how could you oppose being given the option to find other means?

In this postmodern culture don't put nearly enough importance in the family or to childrearing, one of that great crimes of feminism is how they've often denigrated the stay at home mother as something less than when to me there might not be a more important role in society. I look at how our culture has evolved and it seems like a total breakdown from my vantage point and part of the blame for that I think can be placed squarely at the feet of our schools and this idea that we send our kid away and have some supposedly learned person teach you're child out a group of a couple dozen other children who knows what problems for so much of their young lives seems crazy, I think it's damaging to our mental health and that the real intention is more social condition & indoctrination as mandated by the government, I strongly believe people should be given options on how they want to educate and raise their children.

I'll freely admit I am a radical when it comes to education, my own experience made me believe the whole thing needs to be scrapped and started over with because there are no amount of incrementalist reforms that I believe can make a difference.

I can think of a way we can agree on school choice, but I don't think you'll like it. I fully intend to stand up to everyone, if necessary, and point out their errors. That's my way of having autism. People want to self-segregate, against the interests of society and their own children's self interest. Everyone can choose, but the schools have to reflect the diversity, cultural and economic, of their local area. Segregation preserves bigotry. Desegregation causes a fuss, but it works.

We agree that tiers exist now. It gets tiring when you fall back on imagining me to be an idiot. The current system with less regulation on the private schools cannot survive public funding. That inevitably leads to exploitation of vulnerable students in too many cases. The voucher proponents don't want to compare apples to apples.

Unions are a form of free association. If the workers can get the employer to concede that all new hires have to join the union, that's a win for collective bargaining. I don't favor laws requiring or opposing that, just laws preventing employers from using intimidation. They always want to try intimidation.

I am talking about public employees who can't negotiate with their employer(the taxpayers), I could dig up the old FDR quotes if you want to have this discussion. I don't oppose private unions because they have to live in reality, it has to ultimately be a mutually beneficial relationship or else they'll put their employer out of business but you can't put the taxpayer out of business you get that?

It's funny that you bring up free association and segregation up at the same time, I think segregation is an evil thing and the segregation I experienced growing up had a profound effect on me and the way I view the world today but know that you people also suffer from forced association. The problem when you are stuck in one of these ghettos is that you can't leave, there are few if no options about the people you are forced to associate with and not everybody are good people unfortunately so you are forced to become a product of your environment. Social theories aside, what are we trying to accomplish with education? I feel like it should be independence and self sufficiency, when it fails in these areas it fails everywhere. I feel like the issues with race and class would be better served by fixing our broken education system and the economic & social defeatism that is pretty much beat into so many children in this country is far more pressing of an issue. I think some of our moral failings are things we need to work out among ourselves because attempts at solutions more often cause more damage than the amount it actually helps.

Free association does not mean that some people get to deny other people entry, for starters. It also doesn't apply to anything about our education system. Even if the parents choose the school, they don't get to choose the classmates. If people form a private segregated school, they are abusing their children by making them less capable of functioning in society. I don't like the idea of bigots home-schooling their children, but I don't intend to try to stop them; I understand the limits of government power, unlike many if not most conservatives and liberals.

I reject your analogy. The government has far more power to regulate public employee unions, and they use it. I think we need to be realistic about the problems with unions, stop acting like capitalists are a bunch of teddy bears, and get over the notion that a law can fix anything. Let's turn that unintended consequences argument on all bills, not just the ones we personally dislike.

Let it work out on its own usually tops the list of arguments by people who simply oppose change. I see people saying fervently that they want the same things as people who work for social justice, only they oppose every single attempt to change the current system.

Do you think the government should legislate morality or not? That is ultimately the question, if it does then all I think we're really doing is fighting over control of the ball for whatever little time period. I do not subscribe to the Whiggish interpretation of history, I think people that do are ignorant of history and the most dogmatic in their rigid beliefs.

Your experience with public employees unions might be different from mine but in my life experience they have been the opponents of progress and change, mind not everywhere treats their public employees the same or do they have the same sort of power in every locale. In Wisconsin, they were the most powerful political force in the state and it was a totally unbalanced relationship but things have change since. The taxpayers are everyone, it's not just your hated capitalist fatcats and trust me in saying I didn't know many growing up. How can public unions negotiate with taxpayers? These unions use their power and play politics, it's not a fair system. Do you think the teachers union want change or do they stand in the way of progress?

Sending a kid to a violent failing school is far more abusive than anything else, it's basically a prison then and that's the mentality that evolves in those environments. No one should be left to suffer in a situation like that, those formative years are so important and you can poison them forever so choice really is a no brainer for me. I think education needs competition more than anything so the proponents of public schools being the be all end all of education need to take a step back, competition will be the vehicle that will drive innovation and broaden opportunity not government programs and mandates.

People hog resources for their children. What's fair for others is not fair for them. I'd like for everyone to accept the need to take care of all children, but I don't expect it to happen. The only solution will involve some way to compel the people with more political power to take care of those with less political power.

Have men lost the ability to vote?
Are men expected to be subservient household slaves?
Are men given s**t for dressing too "sexy" or for being upfront about their masculine spirit?
Do men get paid lower wages?

I don't think men have taken the place of women. If anything, gender inequality is still a problem, and yes, it's usually women who get the short end of the stick. Don't forget, for their "International Women's Day", we have an entire f*****g month; "Movember".

Well... Movember is more about men's butts. Our butts need a whole month, since on average we're about that uncomfortable talking about getting into them. You see, for some, the correct time frame is never, or infinity. It skews the midpoint.

Does any of that stuff apply to women?

Maybe not in Adelaide?

ETA: https://www.officeforwomen.sa.gov.au/wo ... /equal-pay
No equal pay in South Australia

ETA2:

Sexual harassment in Australia, not sure if Adelaide

ETA3:
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/lifestyle ... 5f49197e56
The comments did not turn into a trollfest. People in Adelaide seem to have a better view of gender roles than L&D, which is something.

Australian law has stated women must receive the same pay for the same work since 1972.

Also we're ahead of you guys on having 12 months paid maternity leave by law.

I don't know about Southern California because I've never been there but I can say from experience that sexual street harassment is extremely rare here.

You readily admit that what you asked about happens in Adelaide, if less than in the US. Bravo, seriously. I hope I can use that to shame people here, as in, "We can't even keep up with Australia, where as you know everything is upside down." That works great on Americans.

But, you knew the answers before you asked, and put that voting strawman at the top of your list. Sorry, but you blew it; you will never again get the forgiveness you could have gotten if only you had kept me thinking you might be an idiot. You're not, and you're busted.

It's not as common in Southern California as it is in New York, but does happen once in a while...typically the perpetrator is a transient or someone who looks like they don't have very high standards for themselves in life. It used to be far more common, with construction workers often being the perpetrators, but a number of things happened that changes that. One of them was a landmark sexual harassment case in 1988...Jenson v. Eveleth Taconite Co, which brought the issue of sexual harassment in the workplace to a head. The case was settled, but companies started taking sexual harassment in the workplace seriously, and making policies to prohibit it. This included large construction companies, which began to prohibit their workers from catcalling,and harassing both workers and passerbyers. Additionally, the demographic of the construction workforce began to shift from, which shifted the cultural aspects of construction workers.

It seems like society has taken some excellent measures to prevent street harassment yet feminists talk about it like like it's still accepted by society, like all men accept and condone it.

Of course it will always exist. You can have policies or laws against it but that will no longer prevent it from happening any more than homicide laws will prevent all murders.

Yes you can use it. You have my blessing
Yes I did. It was a rhetorical question. Which strawman? I suppose in a sense asking rhetorical questions in general is strawmanning.Caught redhanded. The socratic method has failed me!