Disabled kids or single women first?

So exactly what is the problem here? It’s very unclear from reading of the article. Clearly from the title, the author of the article intends to promote feminists’ agenda at the expense of state of disabled kids, but as far as you can see in the article, it is hard to understand why an article on disabled children ends up lamenting the sorry state of single women.

The author doesn’t even pretend for a second to show concern for the state for disabled children which should be a main concern for most sane people, but instead focus solely on women who take care of them, somehow magically turning it into a women’s issue. Instead of looking into more valid questions such as whether the disabled kids fare better or worse in single female household compared to single male household or normal two-parent household (or in two-female parent household or two-male parent household or….these days there are so many alternative family structure) or non-biological parent(s) or…. The article simply say that more women are taking care of these kids than men, implying that this is some kind of major social problem that is in need of immediate attention and social remedy.

To liberal mainstream media the fact that more women are taking care of kids than men are such an irrefutable established social problem, they don’t even bother to elaborate why it is bad. Why a social problem? Is it because kids will fare worse when taken care of by women than when taken care by men?

Let’s put the question this way. So, what will be the solution? When all the women are freed from the dire chore of taking care of kids and shove it onto men, so that women can concentrate on their career aspirations, so that men are deprived of career opportunity and bound at home, thereby “leveling the playing field”? Or when absolute equal number of men and women are taking care of kids so that both sexes have equal chances of losing career opportunity as well as of pursuing career? Who is talking about kids here?

Transgendered science prof

So here comes a whining science professor out from a closet. Now he (or she, as “he” used to be, or whatever) is an instant media celebrity as a living testament of entrenched gender bias in scientific establishment.

Of course the New York Times, the Washington Post and host of other liberal media will love him. He is a transgendered person. He testifies that there is a gender bias in the scientific community. He belittles former Harvard president Summers. He has all the necessary elements to be the leftist media darling. Remember, he has personal experience and very unique insight into this issue which not many other people (or any other people, I suspect) would have. He will be, along with people like the Jersey Girls and Cindy Sheehan, a media icon who would be relied upon by liberal media from time to time to render final verdict for the whole world on controversial political and social issues.

So, with an account of personal experience of one unknown scientist, who remained obscure during when he was a woman because of bias (or simple she was not as talented as other male colleagues – but this question does not matter as Dr. Barres and the media already seem to have an answer), media is ready to conclude that Dr. Summers was a just a sexist, white male.

But how good this professor is as a scientist? Dr. Barres asks, “Why do Asian girls do better on math tests than American boys?” My question is - does he think it is really “scientific’ to compare Asian girls with American boys? Why not compare Asian girls to Asian boys and American boys to American girls? The answers would be obvious – in both ethnic groups, boys will do much better. It is just that when you compare math tests of Asians and Americans as a whole, for some cultural or other reasons, Asians do better. But the great discriminated scientist Dr. Barres compares Asian girls with American boys and satisfied with the result he gets. Now we know his standard of scientific method, and also reasons why he got a bad rap as a scientist when he was a woman and why he is such a celebrity. He chose a wrong career. He should have been political activist than scientist.

Ultimate censorship

This is an example of the most direct, visible display of censorship-cutting off michrophone when a person who is speaking makes remarks that someone - in this case, organizer of the event, dislikes. While this incident took place at a graduation ceremony in one high school, sometime I fret at the thought that one day left-wing liberals would get so powerful and dominant in the political discourse and mass-media that they will someday use the same tactics - imagine during an important political debate on NBC or CBS, a crazed feminista sitting on the control room of the TV station turn off michrophone when conservatives try to argue against abortion or affirmative action.

homework is discrimination

Another story...how about "grading" doesn't properly compensate for differences in pupil's backgrounds?

'Scrap homework' call from Left Party

The Left Party has proposed abolishing homework for children up to the age of 16, saying that it wants to compensate for differences in pupils' backgrounds.

Scrapping homework is one of the proposals put forward in the party's program for 'equality at school', which was presented on Wednesday.

The disappearance of homework would be compensated for with more concentrated teaching and more qualified teachers, said the Left Party's political secretary Anders Thor・to Svenska Dagbladet. The party did not intend to make the school day longer, he said.

Thor・pointed to a Teleborg school in V艀j・ which he said had positive experiences of abolishing homework.

The party argues that schools are not meeting their aim to give every pupil the same chances, and that they are not compensating for pupils' social differences.

The Liberal Party's education spokesman Jan Bjklund described the proposal as "beyond idiotic".

Unions were also critical. Eva-Lis Preisz, chairwoman of the Swedish Teachers' Union, said that politicians should not interfere with schools' homework policies. She said that politicians had an "excessive ambition" to micromanage the work of schools.

"feminist self-defence" in public schools

I just can't love Sweden enough for its stupidity......

This story gives you a glimpse of a future of society run by militant feminists・
A "feminist self-defence" for all girls, money earmarked at compulsory and upper secondary levels, in order to "improve girls' self-confidence"

Left Party: teach all girls self-defence

Sweden's Left Party wants all girls to be offered 'feminist self-defence' training from the seventh grade, aged 13-14. Meanwhile, boys should attend courses in feminism.

The party is demanding that money be earmarked for self-defence for all girls, both at the compulsory and upper secondary levels, according to Svenska Dagbladet.

The proposal is part of a new programme for schooling and is a continuation of the decision made in 2001 by the Social Democrats and their political partners to invest five million kronor in self-defence classes "to improve girls' self-confidence".

The Liberal Party's education spokesman, Jan Bjklund, declared himself sceptical towards the idea of 'teaching violence in school'.

"Different feminist groups are competing to be the most militant. But equality cannot be about learning to beat each other up," he said.