Fourth. I remember that idiot that runs it suggested a child support reform bull (bull is the right word, autocorrect, but you need the second part) that didn't include forcing the woman to allow a paternity test to release funds.
Then there was a weird idea of boys starting school later to "help them develop" (because they're not behind the girls enough...)
That was just obfuscation of the now confirmed open discrimination against boys in the schools.
I remember that idiot that runs it suggested a child support reform bull (bull is the right word, autocorrect, but you need the second part) that didn't include forcing the woman to allow a paternity test to release funds.
You're mad because there was a child support plan that didn't include a requirement for paternity tests?
Then there was a weird idea of boys starting school later to "help them develop"
I'm not taking a position one way or the other - though my position is probably closer to yours.
I'm just saying that the Imp is batshit crazy for denouncing a reform proposal which he has not read because it does not include something that he would like to see.
The whole article is just a thin defence of the teaching profession that suggested they aren't to blame for boys doing worse, which aged like fucking milk when an Italian study confirmed that yes, teachers do openly and consciously discriminate against boys.
Fourth. I remember that idiot that runs it suggested a child support reform bull (bull is the right word, autocorrect, but you need the second part) that didn't include forcing the woman to allow a paternity test to release funds.
Then there was a weird idea of boys starting school later to "help them develop" (because they're not behind the girls enough...)
That was just obfuscation of the now confirmed open discrimination against boys in the schools.
You're mad because there was a child support plan that didn't include a requirement for paternity tests?
I'm sure that definitely happened.
I'm not taking a position one way or the other - though my position is probably closer to yours.
I'm just saying that the Imp is batshit crazy for denouncing a reform proposal which he has not read because it does not include something that he would like to see.
Just the voice of experience. He makes all sorts of crazy claims.
https://archive.ph/NLaDG
It's real.
Yes. It's literally the bare minimum to reform it, to ensure nobody's stuck providing for someone else's child.
I always have the archives. Notice where he published it? There's the link to the Silicon Valley whore brigade again.
The whole article is just a thin defence of the teaching profession that suggested they aren't to blame for boys doing worse, which aged like fucking milk when an Italian study confirmed that yes, teachers do openly and consciously discriminate against boys.
So no comment on the rest of the plan? Did you even read it? You're just throwing a tantrum because it didn't include what you wanted.
Stop making archives using bad URLs, dumbass, that can be used to track you down.
The reason little boys wear almost all of the red shirts is not mysterious; the fact that boys mature later than girls is one known to every parent
Based on what?
Even if replicated, it would not automatically explain why boys do worse, dumbass.
Do I need to? Anything that doesn't include stopping paternity fraud is just another handout to the worse halves.
Not my archive. I just had the link to it. Someone else used that Google link.
Based on this lunacy that if boys start later, they do better. It's not a solution, it's a cover up of the real problem.
It really does explain it. It means that teachers refuse to let them achieve.