How the oppressor class keeps control of their brainwashing facilities.
(media.communities.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (14)
sorted by:
The more open hostility there is towards male teachers, the tighter women's grip on the next generation is.
We need a federal limit on the number of female teachers in every school. 49% or lower.
Win at all costs.
Agree.
Not going to solve the issue. Some of it comes from female teachers, yes, but that's not where the main problem is. It's mostly administrative. Let's look at all his points.
Point #1 - the shopping trip and table set up. The fact that the union (which, given a school, almost certainly exists) did not complain him being forced to do extra work means that the union is not doing it's job. Even if he did not complain about it to the union, someone else who saw it happening should have told him to bring it up to the union. Because that is almost certainly a clear contract violation.
Point #2 - raising voices. Here, it's a policy that is either blatantly sexist or not being equally enforced, not an issue with the faculty. If it was 80% male and 20% female teachers, that same issue would likely still be happening. Same with the dress code issue, Point #3. That's also something that's coming down from the top. Probably because the school is terrified of sexual assault lawsuits from female students because (from the Obama admin, briefly reversed under Trump for like his last year, and then rapidly re-instituted by Biden) the Department of Education says that a female complaining basically automatically needs to be treated as fact.
And Point #4, that again goes back to the DoE rules most likely. I follow what same policy myself (though by personal choice not admin mandate) with certain female students to avoid any appearance of impropriety and avoid lawsuits.
You want to start fixing the school system, both culturally and academically:
Remove the Department of Education (both federal and state level). It is entirely unnecessary.
Immediately bust up national and state wide teacher's unions, and throw all the leadership of those unions (both current and former) in jail for racketeering. A district-wide union I can understand, same with school-wide unions, but nothing larger. At least there will be some accountability to the local teachers then.
Institute nationwide school choice where the money follows the student rather than going straight to the schools. That will force competition between schools and the schools which focus on teaching the feminist, racist and alphabet soup garbage will go under because those students can't perform.
Probably the most important one, but forcibly mandate that all schools spend no more than a certain percentage (I'm thinking somewhere between 10-15% of their budget, I'd have to study numbers in more detail) on administrative work. This will mean removal of a lot of the diversity hire admin positions, and it will also mean that the remaining administrators are too busy with other, necessary stuff to institute and enforce the pointless sexist rules.
And, in practice, this will probably balance out the teacher sex ratio a lot too since the ones that are just there to be glorified babysitters or propagandists will likely head out once they have actual expectations on them and the institutional support vanishes.
There's a lot of good stuff here, and I agree, but there's still one more major hurdle to male participation in teaching, and that's parents.
Single moms seldom understand the importance of positive male role models for their kids, and even parents in intact families tend to view any man who shows an interest in teaching or mentoring kids with deep suspicion. That's every bit as true on the right as it is on the left, and it's a problem.
In general, I agree with a universal regime of school choice, but I think you'd be surprised how many parents, even conservative parents, would still choose to place their kids in schools where the staff was predominantly female.
And maybe for understandable reasons. It's not hard to imagine that now, half a century into this anti-male insanity, the number of men willing to put their own livelihoods at risk for children that are not their own must have shrunk, but meanwhile, the number of degenerates has only gone up. To quote RLM, you may not have noticed, but your brain did. The lack of positive male role models is a vicious circle that leads to fewer trustworthy male role models. Not that you can trust women any more than men (less, probably), but the damage has already been done.
This, along with the loss of knowledge being passed down between generations, is one of the long-term consequences of feminism we're already neck-deep in. Even if we somehow waved a magic wand and stomped this shit out now, it would still be a multi-generational project to repair the damage. Maybe even longer than it took to cause in the first place.
I don't believe the number of pedos and related perverts is any higher now than it was when kids like Tom Sawyer were left to wander through the countryside unaccompanied. The only difference now is that there's less social stigma so they're more open about it.