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.
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.
So you're bashing a plan that you didn't even read, for not sharing your bizarre obsessions? You're really pathetic.
So you are careful?
Do they mature later than girls, or not?
If you keep screaming something, it magically becomes true.