Category Archives: parents

40% Of Canadian Teachers Attacked. 70% Think School Violence Is Getting Worse.

GTNH01232018_SchoolViolence_848x480_1144111171716

A national study conducted by the Canadian Teachers’ Federation (CTF) revealed that at least four in 10 teachers per school jurisdiction have experienced violence from students.

In some jurisdictions, the number of teachers experiencing violence is as high as nine in 10.

READ MORE: 70% of Ontario elementary educators surveyed have seen or experienced classroom violence: union

“What we’re talking about is violence and incidents of violence that are on the rise. More importantly, [it] is the teacher’s unwillingness to report what they’ve been subject to as they’ve been teaching students,” said CTF president H. Mark Ramsankar.

In addition, 70 per cent of teachers surveyed believe that the rates of violence against teachers in schools are getting worse.

The survey also states that incidents of violence and aggression tended to be experienced at higher rates by female teachers working at elementary schools, working in lower socioeconomic status locations or large metropolitan areas, and working as special-needs teachers.

“It’s myriad of activities. It could be from verbal abuse directed at the teachers to physical violence, which includes things as straightforward as spitting on teachers, dealing with children that bite, children that kick, scratch, hit and throw objects. These are the types of outbursts that teachers across the country have been experiencing,” explained Ramsankar.

Concerns about violence against teachers began surfacing in 2017 when a Simcoe County teacher spoke out about an incident she experienced with a student. Julie Austin said in October that she was attacked by a 10-year-old student with special needs, an attack she said lasted 20 minutes.

“I ended up taking a chair over the head and suffered a mild traumatic brain injury and now I’m suffering from post-concussion syndrome,” Austin told Global News in January.

Prior to the attack, Global News heard from several educators and parents across Ontario about their concerns over integrated classrooms and supports being offered to children with disabilities.

Indira Naidoo-Harris, who was sworn in as Ontario’s education minister during a cabinet shuffle this past January, said in a written statement to Global News that school violence is “unacceptable,” following a report by the Elementary Teachers’ Federation of Ontario (ETFO).

“Our schools must be safe, inclusive and welcoming places – not only for students and their families, but for teachers and staff,” she wrote. “Our government is working tirelessly with our partners to strengthen and create a culture of health and safety in our schools.”

Ramsankar explained that many of the schools examined in this study did not give teachers the basic resources they need to deal with these kinds of behavioural issues in the classroom.

“Many of the schools we’re looking at across the country don’t even have things as simple as counselors to be able to deal with children, so as a teacher, when you’ve identified the mental need of a child, there’s nowhere to refer them,” he said.

He adds, however, that only so much of the blame can be placed on a lack of resources on the part of the schools. He predicted that children are under greater mental stress, which the adults in their lives are finding difficult to help them deal with.

Additionally, he suggested that children who act out violently in class are likely exposed to this kind of behaviour in their home lives.

“We talk about the pressure that students are under when they’re away from school. That’s their home life. We don’t know what they’re exposed to when they’re away from school,” he said.

“What we do know is that when they come to school, they have specific needs that need to be addressed and if teachers don’t have the supports in place to be able to refer students or get them the help that they need, then they’re left with the outcome, which may or may not be verbal or physical outbursts.”

While socioeconomic factors were linked to higher rates of violent outburst among students, research showed a mix of jurisdictions experiencing high levels of violence, from areas of lower socioeconomic status to wealthier metropolitan areas.

Either way, he said, teachers don’t have the professional training, the physical aides or the assistance from mental-health professionals that they require to handle these situations appropriately.

“Socioeconomics is one factor but it’s not the only one. Mental pressure on children does not reside solely with children from low socioeconomic backgrounds. We’re seeing that children growing up in large urban centres are subject to different pressures as well.

“So, what it comes down to is the individual needs of the child and what they’re bringing to the table when they arrive in your classroom,” said Ramsankar.

By 

Single, Professional, Mother…Mistake

The Feminine Mistake

Children raised by single mothers are at a disadvantage to those with both parents, data show.

In 1970, three furious feminist tracts dominated the bestseller lists: Kate Millett’s “Sexual Politics,” Germaine Greer’s “The Female Eunuch,” and Shulamith Firestone’s “The Dialectic of Sex.” They, and others who comprised what was then called the “women’s lib” movement, fulminated against male dominance, endorsed sexual liberation and demanded that the nuclear family be smashed.

Their fame has faded, but their influence lives on. Lena Dunham, who has built a persona as a spokesman for women, wondered how any woman could reject the label feminist (a 2016 poll found that 68 percent of American women use the term to describe themselves). Her free-floating contempt for men was evident in a recent tweet: “I’d honestly rather fall into one million manholes than have one single dude tell me to watch my step.”

Note the resentment, even when men are attempting to be kind. Dunham is voicing the 21st-century version of the 1970s slogan: “A woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.” Without denying the beneficial effects of feminism, we are overdue for a reckoning about its missteps. One of those was stoking such bitterness between men and women.

While there is near-universal agreement that women should be treated equally in the workplace and in the family, other aspects of the feminist agenda — such as devaluing marriage — have left women more, not less vulnerable than they were pre-revolution.

In 2012, Katie Roiphe, feminist and mother of two children by different fathers, condemned concerns about single motherhood: “If there is anything that currently oppresses the children, it is the idea of the way families are ‘supposed to be.’ ” That’s the feminist mantra, but “alternative” families work only for a tiny minority. For most women, children and, as we’re coming to understand better with each passing year, men, the traditional family remains the gold standard.

Forty percent of American children are now born to single mothers

It should not be anti-feminist to recognize that men and women do need each other and that, contrary to feminist theories, marriage is a key pillar of stability for both sexes and especially for children. Feminists greeted unwed parenthood and easy divorce as steps on the ladder of liberation. For some it was and is. But the price has been steep. Women are commonly worse off financially after divorce than their ex-husbands. Those who worked before, during or after their marriages experienced a 20 percent decline in income after divorce, compared with men, whose incomes rose by 30 percent.

Forty percent of American children are now born to single mothers. This rate of non-marital births, combined with the nation’s high divorce rate, means that around half of all American children will spend part of their childhood in a single-parent home. Social scientists across the political spectrum agree this family chaos is destructive. In 2017, the poverty rate for woman-headed families with children was 36.5 percent, compared with 22.1 percent for father-only families and 7.5 percent for families headed by a married couple. And abundant data show married adults are happier, healthier and wealthier than singles.

The sexual revolution has scythed through the institution of marriage, leaving millions of women without the love and emotional and financial security that they and their children so need. It hasn’t been a picnic for men, either.

Recent studies about the effects of fatherlessness have revealed that the rise of single-parent (which usually means mother-only) families has had even worse consequences for boys than for girls. Father absence in African-American homes leads to more mental-health and behavioral problems for boys, according to an MIT study by two economists looking at brothers and sisters born in Florida between 1992 and 2002. “Growing up in a single-parent home appears to significantly decrease the probability of college attendance for boys but has no similar effect for girls.” They found other worrisome effects, too. “Fatherless boys are less ambitious, less hopeful and more likely to get into trouble at school than fatherless girls.”

Everything is connected. When more boys are growing up without fathers, there are fewer young men who become the kind of adults women want to marry — educated, employed, non-drug-abusing and not involved with the criminal-justice system. Without the grounding of marriage, men become disconnected from society. Some 22 percent of prime-age men (25 to 54) are not working or looking for work. Unmarried men are over-represented in this group. By contrast, married men with only high-school diplomas are much more likely to be employed than unmarried men with some college or an associate’s degree.

Diseases of despair — alcoholism, overdoses, suicide — have been rising among white, working-class Americans, the very population that has witnessed a steep decline in family stability over the past several decades.

Most women want and need upright, well-adjusted, dependable men to serve as co-anchors of healthy and happy families. The feminist movement was deeply misguided to take aim at marriage. Far from oppressing women, it offers a safe foundation for a full life.

‘Drag Kids’ the “future is gay”

Drag Kids

On Friday, the Huffington Post pushed out a video of a ten-year-old boy, Desmond, dressed as a drag queen. What would prompt a major publication to celebrate the portrayal of a young boy as a sexualized older woman? The fact that they can use Desmond as a self-described “LGBTQ activist and advocate.”

HuffPost

@HuffPost

As Pride month comes to a close, Desmond Is Amazing, the ten-year-old drag kid from New York, is proof that the future is queer.

11:45 AM – Jun 29, 2018

This is child abuse.

Nothing in the video says that Desmond is actually gay or suffers from gender dysphoria. In fact, he’s obviously pre-pubescent, so it’s unlikely he’s had sexual feelings as of yet. But according to the Huffington Post, he’s proof that the “future is gay,” because he dresses proudly as a woman after being shown RuPaul’s Drag Race at age two. Solid parenting, mom and dad.

Now, to even question whether mom and dad have Desmond’s best interests at heart by trotting him before cameras wearing adult female makeup and clothing is to be seen as intolerant these days. But there’s no question that mom and dad are doing something horrible: they’re not guarding Desmond from the public, they’re pushing him into it. And they’re doing so in order to politicize his childhood — to turn him into an advocate for sexuality he knows nothing about.

But this is the world we now inhabit: if you question Desmond’s parents for humoring his sexually-laced gender-bending publicly, you’re the problem. They’re heroes, of course, for using their child’s innocence as a tool to clobber social norms.

Is Desmond better off because his parents are acting as they are? Of course not. We’re not talking about whether they ought to let him dress like a woman (I’d argue they probably shouldn’t, since celebration of gender confusion in early childhood may not be a great strategy for stronger mental health). We’re talking about whether they ought to parade him in front of cameras before millions of viewers dressed like an adult drag queen. The answer, obviously, is no.

But to Huffington Post, the answer is yes, because children are tools, and the future must be LGBT, even at the cost of protecting a child from sexualization.

By BEN SHAPIRO

 

 

America Is In A New Civil War. Are You To Blame?

The 2nd U.S. Civil War

America is in a new Civil War.

Many Americans have become emotional, illogical and violent. Who is to blame?

The nation as I see it is divided into four groups:

  1. The Left – Pseudo and full blown socialist and neo Marxist who despise Western civilization and liberal democracy.
  2. The Right – Hardline to moderates with a distinct hatred for big government and its supporters.
  3. Moderates ‘The Logical’ – This group sees balance between the two extremes but has a its voice drowned out by the NGOs and manufactured media blitz of the others.
  4. The people who don’t care, don’t vote and don’t give a damn about politics until it affects them of their children.

But the Left in my opinion bears most of blame.

  • Through its organized protests which have condoned violence.
  • The cabal of psychology which has promoted ideas contrary to science. What you feel is who you are.
  • The use of NGOs and government insiders to manipulate media and legislators.

All civility has been lost!

A recent piece in the New York Post give the backstory.

Some pundits have been asking if America is on the brink of another civil war, but Glenn Harlan Reynolds at USA Today argues that it “seems to be well under way.”

Hollywood, after all, “has basically turned its products, and its award shows, into showcases for ‘the resistance.’ ” Meanwhile, Americans increasingly are “sorting themselves into communities that are predominantly red or blue.”

Consider last week’s restaurant incidents involving White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders and Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen: Such incidents “would have been largely unthinkable a generation ago.”

Says Reynolds: “For many people, politics seems to have become a substitute for religion or fraternal organizations. If you find your identity in your politics, you’re not going to identify with people who don’t share them.”

The Crimes Against Women And Girls The #MeToo Movement Is Ignoring

female genital mutilation

The anti-woman violence feminists are afraid to confront

By Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Virtually every issue has become a partisan football in America’s politicized age of anti-Trump hysteria.

Except one.

The debate that has bucked this trend is the #MeToo campaign, which has successfully cut across party lines, wealth divides, race and religion. This powerful campaign has focused on taking down anyone who has exploited power and fame for sex, not just stereotypical members of the patriarchy in the form of rich, white males.

We’ve seen Bill Cosby, John Conyers, R. Kelly, Tavis Smiley, Tony Mendoza and Tariq Ramadan publicly shamed along with bastions of liberal values like Eric Schneiderman.

The #MeToo campaign has shown that sexual exploitation is not the purview of only some ethnicities or political parties.

Unfortunately, liberal feminists pick and choose which types of violence against women are worthy of this studiously nonpartisan approach. For example, female genital mutilation, forced marriage and honor violence seem not to be considered egregious enough to be taken up by the broader women’s movement. Instead, these barbaric violations of human rights don’t make it onto progressives’ radar. Rather, they’re excused or ignored by feminists because the perpetrators inflicting the violence tend to have brown skin.

If it were a tradition among white men to remove the genitals of girls and sew their vaginas shut, we can assume the women’s movement would suddenly take an interest. FGM is intended to make sex less pleasurable for women and to impose patriarchal norms about purity and virginity on their bodies. If we can call out the patriarchy in the influential, high-paid, glamorous world of media and entertainment, why on earth aren’t we calling it out when it is being violently imposed between the legs of little girls?

The right of women and girls to be free of abuse has been sacrificed at the altar of political correctness.

Analysis done by my organization, the AHA Foundation, shows that legislators in 24 states hesitate to ban FGM despite evidence of girls at risk in their state. Just recently bills to outlaw FGM and child marriage in Massachusetts were thwarted despite support from both parties. Legislators feared appearing anti-immigrant in a policy debate overshadowed by President Trump’s ham-fisted “Muslim ban.” Despite being one of the bluest of blue states, Massachusetts failed to put the rights of women and girls before political sensitivities.

Similarly, partisan politics turned FGM into a political bargaining chip in Maine and the state still has no protections for girls. Whereas Michigan, where legislators were focused on putting women’s rights above political expediency, ushered in comprehensive anti-FGM legislation at lightning speed.

We do a disservice to women by hijacking their voices to score political points. The campaign for women’s rights has morphed into an anti-Trump crusade. This year the Women’s March is focused on enrolling voters in swing states and promoting progressive candidates. The majority of its anointed candidates are in the Democratic Party and a few are independents. The movement doesn’t bother to give a nod to women’s issues requiring bipartisan support or representation.

If it were serious about advancing women’s rights, the Women’s March movement would work to put those who can deliver for women into office, not just those that tick identity-politics boxes. As a woman of color in politics, I was used as an icon for the issues that matched my gender and skin color. The same will happen to the “identity politicians” being pushed into office today.

Ironically, the women’s movement’s preoccupation with intersectionality will see core women’s issues pushed further down the list of priorities. This cruel ideology asks women of color to remain subjected and abused until we achieve some mythical moment of equality on every score.

Intersectionality entrenches victimhood and prevents men of color from being held accountable for patriarchal attitudes and behaviors, laying the blame entirely on white men.

We must depoliticize women’s rights. We don’t have to agree with each other’s political views but protecting individual human rights must be a given. In a world where half of American women are marginalized, we all lose.

Incest And The LGBT Community: The David Epstein Case

Incest LGBT

Incest is for hicks. That’s the stereotype among educated liberals: Homosexuality is urbane, polygamy is for Mormons, and incest is for hayseeds. So when David Epstein, a Columbia University political scientist, was charged last week with third-degree incest for allegedly shagging his adult daughter, the blogosphere erupted. Conservatives called it another sign of moral chaos. Liberals said it was gross but shouldn’t be prosecuted. One side defends the privacy of all consensual sex; the other side sees an inexorable descent from homosexuality to incest.

Let’s try to come up with something better. If gay sex is OK, how can incest be wrong?

The old answer was genetics. Germany’s high court relied on that argument two years ago when it upheld the conviction of Patrick Stuebing for sex with his sister. Of the four children the couple produced, three had physical or mental disabilities. In general, studies show a significantly higher rate of birth defects in offspring of incestuous couples. The reason is simple: Every family has genetic flaws, and if you reproduce within your family, you’re more likely to get two copies of the flaw—thereby producing the defective trait—instead of acquiring a new, protective allele from another family.

Many incest laws in the United States invoke this concept. In patently eugenic language, they forbid sex between “consanguineous” (blood-related) partners. But this rationale won’t withstand close scrutiny or the march of technology. If genetics is the issue, just get a vasectomy. Then you can bang your sister all you want. Or skip the vasectomy and bang your brother. Gay sex can’t make a baby, so the problem is solved. As the German court noted, Stuebing could have dodged Germany’s incest law in precisely this way.

Epstein has been charged under a different law. It prohibits sex with any close relative, “whether through marriage or not.” It also applies not just to “sexual intercourse” but also to “oral sexual conduct or anal sexual conduct.” If the law were rationally based on genetics, it would ignore sex acts that can’t make babies, and it would distinguish relatives by blood from relatives by marriage.

What about the Scottish woman who was sentenced to probation—and remains under threat of further prosecution—for sex with her half-brother? She was sterilized years ago. You can’t prosecute her based on a risk of birth defects.

So let’s set aside genetics and consider the next question: exploitation. Nowadays, when we talk about incest, we tend to think of child sexual abuse. That’s how we use the term in the repressed-memory debate and in abortion legislation. When politicians such as President Obama make exceptions in abortion laws for “rape and incest,” they’re using the terms synonymously, except that in the incest scenario, the rapist is your dad.

But you can’t prosecute Epstein under that theory. According to news reports, his daughter is 24, and their affair began in 2006. That makes her an adult. Furthermore, police say the sex appears to have been consensual. Four years ago, Ohio’s Supreme Court upheld the incest conviction of Paul Lowe, a former sheriff’s deputy, for what the court called “consensual sex with his 22-year-old stepdaughter.” And last month, a 27-year-old Florida woman was sentenced to five years of probation for sex with her father. Clearly, we’re prosecuting people for incest regardless of age or consent.

At this point, liberals tend to throw up their hands. If both parties are consenting adults and the genetic rationale is bogus, why should the law get involved? Incest may seem icky, but that’s what people said about homosexuality, too. It’s all private conduct. To which conservatives reply: We told you so. We warned you that if laws against homosexuality were struck down, laws against polygamy and incest would follow. And now you’re proving us right.

The conservative view is that all sexual deviance—homosexuality, polyamory, adultery, bestiality, incest—violates the natural order. Families depend on moral structure: Mom, Dad, kids. When you confound that structure—when Dad sleeps with a man, Dad sleeps with another woman, or Mom sleeps with Grandpa—the family falls apart. Kids need clear roles and relationships. Without this, they get disoriented. Mess with the family, and you mess up the kids.

That’s the basis on which the Ohio Supreme Court upheld Lowe’s conviction: “A sexual relationship between a parent and child or a stepparent and stepchild is especially destructive to the family unit.” This destructive effect, the court reasoned, occurs even if the sex is adult and consensual, since “parents do not cease being parents … when their minor child reaches the age of majority.” The German court offered a similar argument against sibling incest. Roughly translated, the opinion’s key passage says:

Incestuous connections lead to an overlap of family relationships and social roles and thus to a disturbance of a family bereft of [clear] assignments. … Children of an incestuous relationship have great difficulty finding their place in the family structure and building relationships of trust with their next caregivers. The vital function of the family for the human community … is crucially disturbed if its ordered structure is shaken by incestuous relations.

Liberals tend to recoil from such arguments. They fear that a movement to preserve the “family unit” would roll back equal rights for homosexuals. But that doesn’t follow. Morally, the family-structure argument captures our central intuition about incest: It confuses relationships. Constitutionally, this argument provides a rational basis for laws against incest. But it doesn’t provide a rational basis for laws against homosexuality. In fact, it supports the case for same-sex marriage.

When a young man falls in love with another man, no family is destroyed. Homosexuality is largely immutable, as the chronic failure of “ex-gay” ministries attests. So if you forbid sex between these two men, neither of them is likely to form a happy, faithful heterosexual family. The best way to help them form a stable family is to encourage them to marry each other.

Incest spectacularly flunks this test. By definition, it occurs within an already existing family. So it offers no benefit in terms of family formation. On the contrary, it injects a notoriously incendiary dynamic—sexual tension—into the mix. Think of all the opposite-sex friendships you and your friends have cumulatively destroyed by “crossing the line.” Now imagine doing that to your family. That’s what incest does. Don’t take my word for it. Read The Kiss. Or the sad threads on pro-incest message boards. Or what Woody Allen’s son says about his dad: “He’s my father married to my sister. That makes me his son and his brother-in-law. That is such a moral transgression. I cannot see him. I cannot have a relationship with my father …”

Homosexuality is an orientation. Incest isn’t. If the law bans gay sex, a lesbian can’t have a sex life. But if you’re hot for your sister, and the law says you can’t sleep with her, you have billions of other options. Get out of your house, for God’s sake. You’ll find somebody to love without incinerating your family. And don’t tell me you’re just adding a second kind of love to your relationship. That’s like adding a second kind of life to your body. When a second kind of life grows in your body, we call it cancer. That’s what incest is: cancer of the family.

I wouldn’t prosecute David Epstein. It isn’t necessary. The incest taboo is strong enough to withstand the occasional reckless fool, and I don’t want cops poking around in people’s sex lives. But incest is wrong. There’s a rational basis to forbid it. And we shouldn’t be afraid to say so.

by WILLIAM SALETAN