|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
 Posted: Sun Nov 17, 2013 8:09 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: |
| American Friends of Efrat, the U.S.-based fundraising arm of Efrat (no relation to the settlement of the same name), is an Israeli anti-abortion group with hundreds of volunteers that counsel Jewish women against abortion and provide support for the first year of the child’s life. |
I don't see anything particular hypocritical in that. Accepting the legality of abortion does not mean one need approve of it, or even that one cannot outright discourage it, especially if discouraging it serves as an end towards other goals. If your goal is a strongly Jewish Israel, of course you'd want to discourage Jewish abortion there. If anything, you should approve of the approach in question and ask yourself, "Why am I not supporting something similar within my own ethnic group, given how strongly I evidently feel about the issue?" Then again, maybe you are; you make good money, so maybe you do funnel a sizable chunk of it to fund programs which use both verbal and economic means to discourage abortion in white gentile women.
I just don't understand how you can get so upset about perceived ethnocentrism given you're wildly pro-ethnocentrism. "Oh, but some Jews as individuals discourage ethnocentrism in other populations." A lot of them probably really believe it. I'm a half-believer myself; I see real differences between ethnicities but I'm not willing to treat them as impenetrable walls.
Last edited by Fox on Sun Nov 17, 2013 8:18 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 17, 2013 8:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Accepting the legality of abortion does not mean one need approve of it, or even that one cannot outright discourage it, especially if discouraging it serves as an end towards other goals. |
Isn't this the dominant pro-choice position? Safe, rare, legal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 17, 2013 8:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| Accepting the legality of abortion does not mean one need approve of it, or even that one cannot outright discourage it, especially if discouraging it serves as an end towards other goals. |
Isn't this the dominant pro-choice position? Safe, rare, legal. |
The only actively pro-abortion people seem to be certain very extreme feminists. We had that one on the forum here some time back, talking about how men had no right to an opinion on the matter and defending her friend who said she was actively happy to have gotten an abortion. I also remember the woman from Planned Parenthood (I think?) who said in response to Dr. Kermit Whatever's trial that she felt it was a matter between "a woman and her doctor." Beyond fringe cases like that, though, I think most people would prefer to see as few abortions as possible. I really don't think Jews -- even politically pro-"choice" ones -- giving money to help fund the first year of infancy for other Jews is some horrible, hypocritical sin. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 17, 2013 9:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The homosexual rights movement is already gearing up to keep leveraging the issue of gay marriage after gays can get married:
| Quote: |
This is not to dismiss Moscowitz's concerns. She's certainly correct when she emphasizes that the egalitarian potential of gay marriage will only be met "if the conversation about marriage…remains focused on the ummarrieds as well": Gay people shouldn't need to get married to be recognized as human, nor should only married gay people have equal rights.
"Marriage inevitably values heterosexual hierarchies and lifelong monogamous commitment," Moscowitz says — but that "inevitably" is exactly what's at stake in the marriage equality debate. Conservatives who insist that gays marrying will change marriage as we know it are correct. As Stephanie Coontz has shown, marriage has changed a lot over the last hundred years; it's a dynamic institution. Accepting LGBT people into marriage will change marriage. Which is a bad thing if you value patriarchy more than love, and a good thing if you value the reverse. |
That's right, the two options on the table are "evil patriarchy" (i.e. everything marriage has actually been for most of history), and "love" (i.e. intermittent dating and casual sex, completely free of commitment, but evidently with accompanying rights). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 5:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gays do need employment anti-discrimination legislation, though. It might as well be national like the Civil Rights Act and its supplement, the Americans with Disabilities Act. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 3:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Gays do need employment anti-discrimination legislation, though. It might as well be national like the Civil Rights Act and its supplement, the Americans with Disabilities Act. |
Well, I partially agree, but I do not think this system of adding to an endlessly-expanding list of special protected classes is the best way forward. Sure, homosexuals need protection from frivolous dismissal, but so do all Americans, so why not just institute labor law which very clearly outlines a set of strict conditions under which one can be fired? Such labor laws would protect the religious, racial minorities, women, and homosexuals from frivolous termination without having to reference any of these groups at all. It would also preempt the future identity wars: "fat rights," "ugly rights," "stupid people's rights," (though stupid people would probably be referred to euphemistically, maybe "the emotionally intelligent") and so forth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 4:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| Kuros wrote: |
| Gays do need employment anti-discrimination legislation, though. It might as well be national like the Civil Rights Act and its supplement, the Americans with Disabilities Act. |
Well, I partially agree, but I do not think this system of adding to an endlessly-expanding list of special protected classes is the best way forward. Sure, homosexuals need protection from frivolous dismissal, but so do all Americans, so why not just institute labor law which very clearly outlines a set of strict conditions under which one can be fired? Such labor laws would protect the religious, racial minorities, women, and homosexuals from frivolous termination without having to reference any of these groups at all. It would also preempt the future identity wars: "fat rights," "ugly rights," "stupid people's rights," (though stupid people would probably be referred to euphemistically, maybe "the emotionally intelligent") and so forth. |
Just say you agree next time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 18, 2013 4:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| And pass up on a chance to crankily expound? Never. Never. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 01, 2013 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Another person advocating for educated whites to take up the role of parenting young black children to "fix" them:
| Quote: |
You got into teaching at the age of 46, which is later than most. What spurred you to make the big life change?
I had always been a social activist and felt there was a responsibility for the “haves” to help the “have-nots.” I used to fulfill that obligation by tutoring inner-city kids, but my actual career was in fashion design and illustration. I remember thinking: When someone’s on their deathbed, are they really going to think about the dress I designed for them? Not to put down fashion design, but it’s just not enough. I decided to flip the equation and instead of doing social activism part-time, make it a full time job.
....
How did your attitude towards teaching evolve over your ten years in the Bronx?
I went in as an idealist. I’d seen all the movies, seen all the poor kids and heroic teachers. But those movies were fake. They started out with a real story but turned it into a happy ending when there wasn’t one. It was grueling. You had to save these kids, but if one was running around the room or dancing on the tables or beating another kid up, you had to deal with it yourself. They’re unhappy kids and they’re going to look for fights to express their frustration. We need legions of psychologists in the school to get the kids the therapy they need. We need wraparound services, community services that give mothers prenatal care, home-visits, teaching parents to read to kids, health services, food. It has reached an emergency level. Almost one out of two kids in public school now is in poverty.
Why did you eventually leave?
I saw that no matter what I wanted for the kids, it wasn’t going to happen. The system purported to be supporting students just wasn’t there. They need remediation, tiny class sizes, one-on-one attention—they need parenting, basically. Their parents are affected by the same Toxic Stress that they are, and it repeats itself in a cycle from parent to child. In America, the wealthiest school is going to get ten times more funding than the lowest one. For every dollar my school was getting, one in the suburbs was getting ten dollars. That’s huge. The kids come in disadvantaged, and they’re subjected to this disadvantaged school. My school was completely third-world. And through it all, it completely negated your life outside school. It was so exhausting. To teach anyway means to be giving, to deliver something. You’re giving out, giving out, giving out. And when you come up against these natural obstructions because of poverty, and then the lack of support from the administration, it’s just too much. |
The language changes, but it always comes back to the same thing: people insisting the state needs to pay educated people to raise poor Black people's children for them, and if only this happens, things will be fine.
| Quote: |
How do you think schools can overcome this achievement gap?
Experiments around the country show it’s not about racial desegregation anymore—it’s about socio-economic desegregation. There’s something called inclusionary-zoning where they’ve forced developers to build affordable housing for the poor, mixed right in the neighborhood with the wealthier people. Right now they’re doing that with four million kids in 80 districts. Those kids are doing great. You could say to a wealthy school district, “We’ll give you this subsidy if you take this number of poor kids.” It has to be less than 50 percent, or else it’ll create the same conditions that exist in the high-needs community. But it would take away crowding in the poor school which would help with lower class sizes. It would benefit everybody. The wealthy schools benefit from the diversity. |
I wonder if anyone is credulous enough to believe the last two sentences of this comment.
I agree with her that poverty is an issue in any case. It's just that the solution isn't what she thinks it is. Even if her plan to raise poor Black children for their parents worked out, those kids would still largely end up poor, because America's economy is structured so as to produce poverty. Sure you might get a lucky success story here or there and very slightly close (but not erase) the "achievement gap," but the "achievement gap" is not particularly important. What's important is making sure even academic low achievers can acquire decent jobs which pay a living wage and upon which they can raise a stable family in reasonable comfort. That's what's missing, not an extra few hundred billion dollars for urban education budgets. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 01, 2013 7:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fox,
I agree that the article contradicts itself.
| Quote: |
| I saw that no matter what I wanted for the kids, it wasn’t going to happen. The system purported to be supporting students just wasn’t there. They need remediation, tiny class sizes, one-on-one attention—they need parenting, basically. Their parents are affected by the same Toxic Stress that they are, and it repeats itself in a cycle from parent to child. In America, the wealthiest school is going to get ten times more funding than the lowest one. For every dollar my school was getting, one in the suburbs was getting ten dollars. |
The first three sentences indicate that pouring money into the schools will not be enough. The last three sentences advocate pumping money into schools.
Maybe we can tackle poverty first and watch the benefits overflow into schools? We cannot expect to make radical gains by pouring money into schools (although teachers could definitely afford to receive more for their salary). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 04, 2013 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Another blow to the equalists:
Male and female brains wired differently, scans reveal
Scientists have drawn on nearly 1,000 brain scans to confirm what many had surely concluded long ago: that stark differences exist in the wiring of male and female brains.
Maps of neural circuitry showed that on average women's brains were highly connected across the left and right hemispheres, in contrast to men's brains, where the connections were typically stronger between the front and back regions |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bigverne
Joined: 12 May 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 05, 2013 8:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Higher 'education' eats itself in LA.
UCLA Accused of Racial “Micro-Aggression”
About 25 graduate students “of color” staged a sit-in in professor Val Rust’s UCLA classroom recently, alleging that there is a “toxic” racial climate in the Graduate School of Education & Information Studies. As partial evidence of that poisonous climate, they complained that the grammar and spelling corrections he made on their dissertation proposals are a form of racial “micro-aggression.”
Nora Cisneros, one of the sit-in participants, said they chose to protest Rust’s class because he doesn’t encourage “a climate where students of color can discuss issues of race openly.”
That's what America's 'students of color' need--to talk more about race!
http://www.frontpagemag.com/2013/mark-tapson/ucla-accused-of-racial-micro-aggression/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=ucla-accused-of-racial-micro-aggression |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 05, 2013 9:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Critics of this theory [of racists micro-aggressions], such as Kenneth R. Thomas, PhD, of the University of Wisconsin–Madison, point out that it enforces a victim mentality by creating problems where none exist: “The theory, in general, characterizes people of color as weak and vulnerable, and reinforces a culture of victimization instead of a culture of opportunity.” |
I agree, completely and without reservation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Titus
Joined: 19 May 2012
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
