Lesbian family superior?

I wonder why do these lesbian people want their "mariage" or "family" be seen as normal. I thought in their worldview, family are the souce of all evil = patriarchy in the world. Family in traditional form is all evil but lesbian family is just as normal as traditional family??? Not just normal, but sometimes superior (when raising boys), and the whole society needs to promote lesbian "family"??

It looks like first these lesbians wanted to be left alone, and then treated as normal, then demands recognition of being superior in some aspects, then what next?

Emergency! We do not have enough black females in ballet!!!help! Help!!

Affirmative action mentality in every nook of the world series... this time astounding shortage of black females in ballet!!!

"Man tax", America style

I remember that there was a same kind of tax, simply labeled differently, proposed in Sweden but shot down by immediate public outcry. In Sweden it was named “man tax” ( I am not sure if this is exact translation from Swedish but this was the name I saw). A tax that was to be levied only against men because of their sin for born into a wrong gender that is guilty of oppression of the other gender until the latter half of last century. You might imagine that in a country where men are increasingly legislated into pee like women, there would be enthusiastic support for such a tax, both from women and men (with feminists` guns behind their back). But instead their was immediate public denunciation of such a sexist legislation. Seems like even Sweden still retains a bit of sanity. But not in America. Even this kind of blatantly discriminatory bill could be phrased and couched in benign terms by the hands of (or the tongues of, or the pens of ) gender feminists.

What a surprising article!

Is the author of this feminists-dogma shattering article still not banished? Is the editor of the Slate still not sentenced to mandatory gender-sensitivity training? If not, good for them. Hope it will continue to be so but I am not so optimistic.

Why diversity training does not work? Ask the right question

Of course it doesn`t. and it should not work. But the bigger, underlying issue is, why care? Diversity advocates would say all the nice, feel-good stuffs about promoting diversity in corporations, and will conclude that it would boost companies` profits. Really? Is there any statistics to prove that? Any statistics that is controlled for all the external variables that would affect companies performance and that can point to the pure economic benefits of promoting diversity? I`ve never seen that.

Most of the articles on this topic simply tout the virtue of having more women in senior jobs and praise how it boost companies` performance, but almost always without hard statistic to prove that. Even if they show the stats and they seem to support the claim, you need to be careful and need to consider a few points;

Did the performance gain occur after the gender affirmative action proramme was instituted or did it take place before?

Is the performance gain a direct result of gender quota or was it brought about by different factors, e.g. improved management, cost cutting, etc. and that gender quota programme simply coincided with the period of performance gain?

These kinds of hard questions may not really be amenable to feminists-inspired advocacy articles.

The most interesting thing about this kind of article for me is not that nobody really ask this kind of hard-nose question. It is rather that the initial question (why diversity training does not work) is not considered at all in the article, but quickly transformed into brainstorming session on how to increase women and minority at senior levels. The diversity training and gander/race balance are not the same; the latter is only one of several benefits that the former is supposed to bring, according to official party line of diversity advocates. But now you know what they care about the most (or the onky thing they care about) when advocates tout virtue of diversity.