With the district in a financial crisis and hundreds of its members facing layoffs, the Milwaukee teachers union is taking a peculiar stand: fighting to get its taxpayer-funded Viagra back.
The union has asked a judge to order the school board to again include Pfizer Inc.’s erectile dysfunction drug and similar pills in its health insurance plans.
The filing is the latest in a two-year legal campaign in which the union has argued, so far unsuccessfully, that the board’s policy of excluding erectile dysfunction drugs discriminates against male employees. The union says Viagra, Cialis, Levitra and others are necessary treatment for “an exclusively gender-related condition.”
But lawyers for the school board say the drugs were excluded in 2005 to save money, and there is no discrimination because they are used primarily for recreational sex and not out of medical necessity.
Teacher unions are overwhelmingly Democrat.
My previous story on Viagra was about how Democrats voted in favor of subsidizing Viagra for child molesters and rapists. Democrats think that abortions and drugs to provide recreational sex are “health care”. In Canada, the government provides taxpayer-funded sex changes and in vitro fertilization because they are “human rights”. Is that the direction that the Democrats want to take us in? Who is supposed to pay for all these unnecessary goodies?
Unfortunately, sex education that indoctrinates children into a liberal sexual ideology is no longer being found just in big cities and liberal “blue states.” It’s reaching even small cities in the heartland, like Helena, Montana–where Tuesday night, parents and other citizens will have their first chance to respond to an outrageous new K-12 health curriculum (pages 45-50) that’s been proposed there.
It would teach kindergarteners the names of male and female sex organs, first graders about homosexuality, and fifth graders about “oral or anal penetration.” It would also teach sixth graders about sex changes, and high schoolers would be taught to “understand erotic images in art.” These lessons aren’t age-appropriate, and may result in more confusion than understanding. For example, in elementary school virtually all children like their own sex better than the opposite sex–we should not be planting the idea that this might mean they are “gay.” In fourth grade they would learn that “taunting” and “teasing” may be illegal sexual harassment. Sadly, teasing and taunting are sometimes a fact of life for fourth graders, but they have nothing to do with sex. And here’s the kicker–the program’s implementation may be paid for with federal “stimulus” money.
You can kind of get an idea of what their goals are for your children. They want your children to oppose chastity and oppose traditional marriage, etc. and they think that these attitudes are healthy.They want your children to normalize behavior that you might think is unhealthy and immoral. And they don’t ask parents for permission to indoctrinate your children. They take your money, and change your children’s beliefs to match their worldview. And they tell the children not to tell their parents anything of what goes on in the classroom. In some places, there is no parental notification, and no opt out.
Here’s a video with a sex educator squaring off against an FRC scholar.
There are real people pushing this on children – your children – and they’re not sorry! And these are the people who decide how MY tax dollars will be spent, and the rules by which my kids and the neighbor’s kids will be educated. This is what you get when you vote for Democrats.
Remember Kevin Jennings, Obama’s safe schools czar. A vote for Obama was a vote to sexualize children.
Complacency and “general hopelessness” have been blamed for the failure of young British men as research reveals that underperformance in school and university is now creeping into their working lives. A report published today by the Higher Education Policy Institute thinktank says male graduates are far more likely to be unemployed than their female counterparts.
Figures show that the economic downturn caused an increase in graduate unemployment from 11.1% at the end of 2008 to 14% by the end of last year. But when the figures are broken down by sex a stark picture emerges of 17.2% of young male graduates failing to find jobs compared to 11.2% of women.
[…]Bahram Bekhradnia, the HEPI’s director, spoke of the “general hopelessness of young men”. “The increase in unemployment that occurred between 2008 and 2009 is striking. For those graduates who have not found work it is a personal tragedy – a really bad start to their working lives,” he said.
He pointed to forecasts that suggest women will dominate the professions within 15 years. “That has all sorts of implications for things such as family creation, child-rearing and so on. The situation in some countries is even more extreme. An American woman told a conference I attended of the fury of black American women who found it impossible to form relationships with men of the same race with similar educational attainment because black American males weren’t going to university.
[…]Around half of the difference can be put down to subject choice, but the rest is unaccounted for and could indicate discriminatory forces.
[…]…the underachievement of men in school, university and adulthood is now an international phenomenon and it is one that is being increasingly studied in psychology.
Why are men struggling to find jobs? Well they are not doing very well in school.
In 2006, the high school dropout rate, which was 1.5 points higher for girls in 1970, was 2 points, or almost 20% higher, for boys (10.3% vs. 8.3%).
A 2007 study led by James Heckman of the University of Chicago asserted that “the pattern of the decline of high school graduation rates by gender helps to explain the recent increase in male-female college attendance gaps.”
The gender gap in college attendance for at least the past several years has returned. In late April, Uncle Sam’s Department of Labor told us that after three years of almost equal gender enrollment by high school graduates (2006, 2007, 2008), 202,000 more women than men from the class of 2009 went on to college. Women make up almost 55% of the current year’s freshman class.
The problem is that there are almost no male teachers and also that boys don’t learn well in co-ed classrooms – they get distracted by girls. The curriculum is not suitable for boys, who learn better with different materials that focus more on things that boys like, like wars, guns and adventures. Boys learn better with male teachers and all-male classrooms because they need male role models in order to succeed.
The organization MenTeach, a Minnesota organization dedicated to increasing the number of males working with young children, posted a survey on its Web site showing that males constitute less than 20 percent of America’s 2.9 million elementary and middle school teachers. The 2008 survey, based on source data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, showed even more drastic differences among different grade levels:
44 percent of America’s 1.2 million secondary school teachers.
18.8 percent of America’s 2.9 million elementary and middle school teachers.
2.4 percent of America’s 685,000 pre-kindergarten and kindergarten teachers.
Most women want men to be strong husbands and fathers, so they’ll need to make sure that men have jobs. In order for men to have jobs, they’ll want to oppose feminists who discriminate against men in the education system.
WINTERY KNIGHT 