Yes. Just because they’re favored and privileged in many areas of life doesn’t mean that’s true in all things. Dads are 10% of the involved parents at that school. If having special events for them will encourage more to participate, go for it.
Apply the standard test; swap the genders around. If moms were 10%, and the school had exclusive events to get them more involved, what would you say then?
I think you are swapping this wrong - if there is a ‘Muffins with Mom’ event, and a single dad crashes it so his child can participate, would there be outrage? I personally would not be outraged, but I’m not outraged by the mom at the dad event.
I’m not outraged by any of it, either. I just don’t think the linked article rises to the level of this thread. There is much in it that might be interesting to discuss; why aren’t more dads participating in this school’s parent activities, does having exclusive events for them make sense, and will it work. I don’t see that that should all be dismissed as a stupid idea of the day.
There is a Muffins with Mom event.
It might also be interesting to discuss why this particular mom wanted to crash the Donuts with Dads events. Was she thinking “how dare they exclude me”, “I wonder what I can learn from them that will help me fill the role that’s missing from my child’s life”, or just “donuts!”
I fully support dad or mom centric events. Encouraging parent and child interaction is fine.
*Discouraging *it is the only thing I take issue with.
Would not be a story, since the school took the appropriate action, meaning supported the student’s rights, and allowed them to change teachers. There may also be a talking to for the teacher involved.
As such, the system works, and I have no complaint about the system. School did right by its student.
Problem that remains:
The video on Fox News clearly takes the teacher’s side and seems to argue that the student must be forced to pledge allegiance.
I just wrote a rant about the empty symbolism of the pledge, the flag, the anthem. People who care more about the empty symbolism than what it is supposed to stand for can suck my nut sack.
Forcing people to swear oaths kind of defeats the purpose, don’t you think? I’ll affirm that I’ll tell the truth if you put me on the stand, and be liable for perjury if I tell a lie. Note that it absolutely wouldn’t stop me from doing so, the affirmation or oath has no magical power. Forcing someone to endorse a god or a state has the same effect: none.
“I am being forced to involuntarily pledge allegiance to the inanimate symbol of a particular country, and to the broken, corrupt government that it represents, just one nation out of many, with the freedom to not have to worship things guaranteed by law, a nation divded, with liberty and justice not necessarily upheld.”
You could also make me pledge my allegiance to the Catholic church, like during the inquisition, if you want. I guarantee that would not make me think more highly of that church, and would instead invigorate my moral opposition to it.
People who equate patriotism with nationalism should really note that every single military dictatorship, current or historical, is full of racist, violent nationalists who call themselves “patriots”. Nationalism has limited usefulness as a concept in the first place, but nation worship is beyond ridiculous.
The GOP “freedom caucus” wants the scalp of IRS chief, John Koskinen, for the horrible sin of trying to enforce the law by limiting tax exemptions to social welfare organizations that actually perform social welfare functions rather than pure politics.
This was their main goal this week instead of funding anti zika virus measures and extending the federal government’s spending authority which runs out September 30.
Slightly more rational GOP heads prevailed and instead of going directly to impeachment, they’ve decided to have judiciary committee hearings. At least until the election is past.
Link
No doubt investigations and hearing will waste more millions to no useful purpose other than, perhaps, frightening off proper IRS investigations.
Who cares? The question is what damage is there to have the child’s mother attend. If it turns out that the presence of a single woman, discouraged dads from coming, or if it meant that based on her example mothers of two parent households would start attending instead of dads, then the author might have have a point, but that seems unlikely.
The only real effect is that it allows her child to participate in the same activity as the other children. If everyone gets a doughnut except for those without dads that’s just plain mean. While the author is right that exclusion is part of life, purposely creating exclusion for a child who already may feel insecure about their lack of two parents doesn’t seem like a good thing for a school to encourage. Even the author’s own anecdote in which everyone else created father’s day cards while she created “Mommy-Daughter Day” crafts, was a way to avoid excluding her. According to her argument she should have been told to go sit in the corner with her head down until everyone else had finished their card.
I can’t believe I’m going to say this but think of the children, won’t somebody please think of the children?!
The donuts and muffins event is mainly for the kids to participate in so that they can interact with a specific parent doing some random event that the school feels is constructive. Whoever created that event was lax in accounting for kids who have only one parent, no parents, or possibly same-sex couples. I’m pretty damn sure that the goal wasn’t to exclude those orphans and kids who lost a parent like some cruel Oliver Twist headmaster.
So what happens if a kid doesn’t have one, or both parents?
Of course the best thing to do is to let the kids go to both, with whatever parent they have. The article writer’s making way too big of a deal out of the letter of the law than the spirit of the law.
Rep Steven King (R), continues to be dick
Steven King takes advantage of his platform as an elected official to be a douchebag and undermine human intelligence.
I guess we’ll know if/when/in some random alternate universe/ Kaepernick sets off a suicide bomb carefully hidden under his NFL uniform. Pads made out of plastique? I dunno. 
Unsportsmanlike conduct, delay of game, personal foul, roughing the kicker, roughing the center…ten thousand yard penalty!
The NRA is running an anti-gun control ad in Maine with the breathless complaint that “The New Yorkers Are Here!”. Except that the ad uses an image of the San Francisco skyline with the Statue of Liberty embedded into it.
Never mind the skyline, who do they think they’re fooling with that horrendous Maine accent. Someone has seen too many Steven King movies.
Does Ted Nugent run back and forth in terror, shitting his pants?
Only before his draft review.
Didn’t happen to say what he thought she was being ‘arrested’ for, did he? And why she still seems to be at large?
Seems a bit like this mook is taking the piss out his listeners. “Hey, listen to this. These rubes will believe anything I tell 'em!”
This IS the conservative shock-jock business model.
How many are there? Seems as though there are hundreds, scattered across the airwaves like belligerent confetti! Who writes these guys the checks they cash? How many can their ecosystem of bullshit support?
Because other than sports, what the hell else you going to put on AM Radio these days? It is a complete wasteland of ‘who the fuck even listens to AM anymore?’