Feminist Public School System is a Toxic Environment
By Brian Simpson (pseudonym)

I've been a supply teacher for 20 years in every subject area, K-12 in over 200 schools and in over 1000 classrooms in a large Canadian city. I can report that the education system has been taken over by feminists and lesbians who preach a daily diet of hate, violence and discrimination against males despite pretenses of “tolerance” “non violence” and “inclusiveness.”

It's moderately common to find girls wearing anti-male, hate clothing. Slogans on T-Shirts include: “Stupid Factory:Where Boys are Made;” “BOYS ARE STUPID, THROW ROCKS AT THEM!” and (prefixed by the profile view of a handgun) “He had it comin'”

Others include “WHO NEEDS BOYS WHEN YOU HAVE CREDIT CARDS?” and “I LIKE BOYS WHO ARE SENSITIVE AND CRY, WHEN I HIT THEM;” and “MENtal Anxiety MENtal Breakdown MENstrual Cramps MENopause Did you ever notice how all our problems begin with MEN.”

Can you imagine if these comments were addressed at girls?

I've been in staff rooms where I have read pamphlets issued by the Canadian Federation of Teachers about Afghanistan. Exclusive concern was shown for women, girls and female babies and none for males despite the fact that boys had the double-whammy-plus of being forced to carry a gun, kill and be killed, traumatize and be traumatized, starting as early as eight-years-of-age. They had been denied schooling and been traumatized for life. The girls only had been denied schooling.

I've been in classrooms where videos were shown blaming all date violence on males. No sexual violence female-to-male was mentioned and women were referred to as "men's property." Once the video had been shown, the girls overflowed with anti-male hate statements and the boys were afraid to speak on any matter. I told students that the video's depiction was false but they insisted that the video depiction was the absolute truth. Such indoctrination is the norm in schools.

In the context of the omni-present, "Women's History Month" posters in the school, I have been in homerooms in which the boys are so abused by their feminist teachers that they cannot even whimper, even after serial attempts to get them to say anything at all. In one classroom in which Grade-12 students were nearing their graduation, I had a boy cry about the climate of ever-climaxing anti-male hate.

EMPLOYMENT

As a male, I am routinely discriminated against for employment with no recourse to authorities.

In supply teaching, patterns emerge such as gender-cleansing in the early years (Men need not apply.) The substitute clerks want women, and when they can't get them (a rarity), a man can get called at the last minute (late calls generally translate as, "I-couldn't-get-a-woman call").

In my experience, all substitute clerks are women. In the last two decades, phone/computer machines have been put into place in various districts. As a result, when IT phones instead of SHE, the early years open up to men, initially. The resultant realization that the conventional gender-cleansing is not in place results in male supply teachers being "greeted" by school secretaries (always women) who ask the man reporting to the office in the morning, "What are YOU doing here?" "I'm here for____(a woman teacher)."

In response to that, the secretary reports the man to the principal who tries to gender-cleanse by saying to the male supply teacher, "I can give you Grade 5." "No, thanks, I'll take the Kindergartens." I've even had to discuss such matters for two minutes with some principals.

In the hundreds and hundreds of applications I have put into for teaching jobs, I have never had a response to any application for Grade 2, Grade 1 nor Kindergarten; and I've only had one interview for a position in Grade 3--which was assigned to a woman.

FACULTY OF EDUCATION

Here are some of my experiences as an Education student.

First of all, to be in teaching is to be immersed in femininity. Wall-to-wall women, everywhere; the students, the teaching staff, the curriculum, the posters on walls, the celebrations, the laments, the teacher unions, the student unions, the union unions. In perfect lock-step, all are one, and half of humanity counts for nothing, except to be harmed, of course.

In one class, the professor had issued a 4-page photocopy to all students (26 women and 3 men in the room). The article was composed entirely of assertions. There was a perfect void of evidence. The essence of the article was that men, most especially white men were all advantaged and that women were all disadvantaged.

The monomania was so advanced that one black woman complained that whereas there was affirmative action for women, including black women, it was mostly Caribbean black women who got the jobs and not the African black women. The women in the room gushed with sympathy that such a situation could persist in Canada. Various women-as-victim and men-as-victimizer as the universally advantaged had serialized. I waited for an almost void in the lament and had declared various facts.

I pointed out that in Canada's armed services, over 116 000 men and boys and only 30 women and no girls had been killed in service and that the response of governments in Canada and elsewhere the world over had been one of, "Advance women."

I pointed out that in the civilian work world, up to 2005, just over 96% of job-caused deaths were male and that as of 2006, with the boom in the economy, for the first time, just over 1000 men and only approximately 20 women were killed.

The women who spoke (about 12 of them), utterly whaled against me in seething frenzied hate. It was like being in a Nazi Party meeting. I was shouted-down. In fact, the women who insisted that the proper world order was save-the-women/kill-the-men, complained vociferously to the knights in shining armor (the few men who were allowed into the teaching faculty.)

These professor men called me at home on a Sunday to set up a meeting to censor me for raising gender issues!. They didn't complain about what the women were doing.

The one male professor encouraged me to get out of teaching by way of using the university employment service (a feminist organization.)

I told them that in every case, I was responding to the women who had raised the issues in the first place and that they had to back off. The head professor said he would speak with the professors. But, following that meeting, my classroom curricula had included one article about suicide which mentioned that female depression was 50% higher than male depression, but did not mention that male suicide was 400% higher than female suicide.

Another professor issued learning-outcome statements to the class which counselled us to include examples of women (and not examples of men).

OTHER HARASSMENT

Previous to that event, we teacher-students were shown a video of two teachers in team teaching. The woman teacher in the video had the line assigned to her, "I hope I'm treated as an equal (by the man teacher)" and the man teacher was assigned the line, "I'll have to guard against my male ego."

The same female professor who had presented that video had chosen a text book which included curricular topics for lesson plans. The topics included, "Violence against Women" (and, of course, no concern for "Violence against Men").

During one presentation, a mother of a disabled daughter told how some, "ardent Feminist" women had taken her daughter to a male strip joint. Such was described by the mother as, "wonderful." Following that, the same "ardent Feminist" woman had taken her daughter to the USA to attend a Feminist, "woman's music camp" and we were shown a slide of those women, many of whom were topless. Evidently lesbianism is encouraged.

"So, why didn't you complain to officials of the university or elsewhere?" My answer is as follows: The student union had a handbook which blamed all date violence on men and its front office window had three prominently displayed posters about date violence which blamed into all on men. Also, annually, the union had taken part in the Marc Lepine remembrance day ceremonies at the university...which blamed everything on men. As for the university, it had Women's Studies and no Men's Studies, and a , "Womyn's Center" and no Men's Center. The, poster, "greeting" men to the "Womyn's Centre" reads:

MEN:

Welcome to the Womyn's Centre
This is a SAFE PLACE for Womyn
and Womyn identified people only.
MEN are asked to KNOCK before entering and to use the space briefly
Only to access the resources such as: pamphlets, free stuff and books in the Library.
Thank you for your respect and understanding.

The Coming Anti-Life Onslaught: Obama's Abortion Agenda at Home and Abroad



Exclusive Commentary by Rev. Thomas J. Euteneuer
Human Life International

January 15, 2009 (LifeSiteNews.com) - President-elect Barack Obama’s Web site, change.gov, contains a link titled, “Open Government: Your Seat at the Table.” Follow this link and you will find hundreds of papers submitted to the Obama-Biden Transition Project by various interest groups.

One other such paper, entitled, “Advancing Reproductive Rights and Health in a New Administration: The First 100 Days,” is endorsed by over 50 pro-choice organizations ranging from the ACLU to one called Women Thrive Worldwide. Most of the demands contained in the paper are disturbing though not surprising: a massive increase in funding to Title X (which funds Planned Parenthood), an end to abstinence-only education, assuring that anyone, anywhere can have an abortion at taxpayers’ expense, passing the ironically-named Freedom of Choice Act, and making sure that only pro-choice ideologues are appointed to the federal judiciary, and so on.

The international ambitions of this anti-life coalition, however, are the most fearsome aspect of their agenda and US taxpayer funding is the new plum to be plucked. In post-Roe America, it is hard to find ways to make abortion more ubiquitous than it already is, but significant sectors of the developing world still maintain firm prohibitions against the destruction of innocent life, and these groups want to change all that. What they are advocating may be “change that America can live with,” but it certainly isn’t change that the developing world can live with.

In addition to the expected demand for a reversal of President Bush’s “Mexico City Policy” (the executive order first enacted by Ronald Reagan) which restricts funding for international organizations that promote abortion, these groups are calling for the investment of one billion dollars in the promotion of abortion and contraception around the world. This call includes the restoration of funding to the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA), that radical abortion-promoting arm of the UN which has supported and funded coercive abortion in China. They want to nearly double the US contribution to the UNFPA to the tune of $65 million in order to continue this malfeasance and other like works. Monies going to the organizations formerly blocked from funding by the Mexico City Policy could represent as much as a 10-fold increase in funding for contraception and abortion worldwide.

We can’t underestimate the potential negative impact of this funding on inherently life-affirming cultures. In a recent interview in Rome, Dr. Stephen Karanja, head of the Catholic Doctors’ Association of the country where Barack Obama’s father was born, had this to say about the coming US war on babies in the developing world: “We in Kenya know [Obama] as a person who is anti-family. A person who supports abortion .. This is something that a lot of people don't realize, that what these Americans do affects innocent people thousands and thousands of miles away. The truth is that they have put a bad man in the most powerful office in the whole world and are putting people outside your borders in danger.” It is rare to find someone so clear-sighted about Obama in the countries that are presently fawning over this “historic” presidency. Dr. Karanja sees the oncoming onslaught of American-led propaganda against his people, a full 90% of whom consider abortion to be an “abomination” (his wording).

As president of an international pro-life organization, I travel to countries all over the developing world and meet those who have been harmed by the United States’ most destructive export: our twisted “pro-choice” ideology which is deceptively re-packaged and re-named “reproductive healthcare” for propagandizing the decision-makers of the poorer countries. In our official support of “reproductive healthcare,” we, as Americans, communicate to the world that we think their economic and social problems would be solved if only there were fewer of them that had problems. This attitude is nothing more than the classic elitist mind-set of blaming the poor for their poverty and trying to eliminate poverty by eliminating poor people. And now we are dangerously close to putting billions of dollars behind that attitude.

If the Obama administration gives in to the demands of the anti-life coalition in its first 100 days, as we have every reason to believe he will, I fear there will be no undoing the damage we will be forcing on the developing world. It seems that often we have more to learn from the people of the developing countries of the world than they do from us. Dr. Karanja’s final word is true not only of Kenya but of all nations: “The only resource we have that is truly ours, is our people. Don’t attack them and we’ll be alright.” He added, ominously, “And this administration of Obama, is going to be a nightmare for our people.”

We owe it to our brothers and sisters in these countries to let President-elect Obama know that the “places at the table” should not be taken by those who think that the world would be better off without them.

Back to Top | Print this Story | Email to a Friend | View Story on LifeSiteNews.com

To all parents in Canada.

Time and again our provincial governments are conspiring with our well padded school boards and teachers unions to bypass the parental rights of our children.
Currently in Ontario there is no specific age for which a person is considered too young to receive 'medical treatment'. It is up to the doctor's discretion to determine if the person is mature enough to understand the implications of the medical treatment; abortion, pills or otherwise.

This law came into effect back in the 80's under a committee principally driven by Planned Parenthood. It was a means of secretly getting to our children and pushing their sexual freedom agenda which ultimately leads to a perceived need for sexual health clinics. Create a void that can never be filled then apply for tax dollars to fill it.

The last place parents want to place their children today is in any publically-funded school or institution, especially if the parents have any moral standards. They simply don't have enough sense to stick to the mandate they were originally given by parents and taxpayers. Indeed, they've become propaganda tools to indoctrinate our young minds with their own personal agendas.

Is it any wonder provincial governments don't support private or home schooling?
Why don't you?

See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRGZLSVph3A