Actually there is a white studies class. Well, it's called whiteness studies actually.

Unlike the other ones, it's more about disparaging whites... that's why it's "okay" I guess.

Mother/grandmother/sister/niece is incest territory. Do you think that's normal? All the other examples, yes.

I think you understood OP differently than I did. You clearly think OP said that since some women use their charms to influence men, men assume ALL women (including their grandmothers, mothers, sisters...) use sexual charms ON THEM at all times.

I took it to mean that since some women influence men through flirtation, that men look for it and understand that it exists. It then becomes an issue of misunderstanding.. is that girl wearing a short skirt because she wants attention, or for some other reason? Some men will take it as an invitation, others won't.

It's compounded by the fact that many goals in life are a numbers game. The more job interviews you go to, the more likely you get a job. The more women you hit on, the more women you sleep with. That's indisputable.

You must be pretty naive. Why do you think companies like Google are actively discriminating against boys by having programs targeted at girls? Because they are secretly misogynists?

1. Just because meritocracy is real doesn't mean changes happen instantly. GM and Chrysler WERE very good car companies at one time (and many people still think they are). If you think they aren't, that doesn't change history. It takes time to fall.

2. Maybe their meritocratic skill is in navigating politics and unions, not car making.

You should contact Elisabeth Rosenthal, the author, and let her know about this. It would definitely make for an interesting followup article.

Perhaps your doctor friend is paying the bill for the entire practice, including nurses and other staff, because he's the owner?

Or maybe it really is that high for just one person, but there are many other doctors paying much less to bring the average down.

Like this guy: http://truecostofhealthcare.or...

He pays about $5000/year it seems.

Yeah I stopped to think that. Then I realized, wait a minute, the Christians in Egypt didn't drop bombs on the Muslim Brotherhood, why are their churches being bombed?

The Yazidi didn't drop bombs on ISIS, why are they being killed, raped, enslaved?

The schoolgirls in Chibok didn't drop bombs on Boko Haram, why are they being killed, raped, enslaved?

I'm sure that dropping bombs on Muslim terrorists and soldiers and killing Muslim civilians angers Muslims, and some of them become terrorists. I don't think it plays a large part because it doesn't explain the vast majority of Islamic terrorism which is committed either against other Muslims or against already horrifically oppressed groups living in Muslim areas. It also doesn't explain why that seething anger has to wait until a benign event like an art show to activate.

Like "They've been dropping bombs on my family for years, and drones continue to kill innocent people every day. They've been kidnapping innocent people and torturing them. Their prisons are like torture chambers where they humiliate the prisoners. They've destabilized governments. They've propped up evil dictators who use chemical weapons against innocent people. But OMFG TOMORROW IN TEXAS THEY ARE DRAWING MOHAMMED!!!!! Finally I have the motivation needed!"

I mean come on, I have very little respect for terrorists but even I don't think they are that dumb and/or disconnected from reality.

Christians in the Middle East have been oppressed for a thousand years. Why don't we read about the Christian underwear bomber on an Etihad Airways flight? Why aren't Christian suicide bombers attacking the Kaaba and the crowds around it?

Yeah.. unfortunately something being "possible" isn't really useful to the conversation.

Something being "possible" with no evidence that it actually happened certainly isn't strong enough to draw an equivalence between different groups of zealots.

Google's lifetime plan only provides 5/1mbps, but the capacity for gigabit is still there. I wonder if they'll start selling that extra capacity to whoever wants it.. like if you sign up for Netflix, Netflix says "You can't stream our highest quality HD content, but for an extra $3.95/month we can enable that." Then they pay Google for 10mbps on your behalf just for use with their service.

There are always worse things. Loss of privileges or even full isolation seem pretty effective even for people already in prison.

Wow I've never heard that one before!!! That's only like one of the most famous Supreme Court cases ever (and btw it's not Bolling v Sharpe).

False equivalence. Helping people where "they are behind" is not the goal. The area where boys are behind that the new school purports to help is not as conducive to good jobs as the girls school.

Like you said in another post, nobody's helping people get into the toilet cleaning industry, because that's not really a worthy goal.

If there's a boys school that focuses on STEM, then it's fine, just like separate bathrooms are fine. In this article, the boys school is going to be focused on language skills.

And that's the same reasoning as why the boys language school is not good enough.

I think segregation would be okay if it were optional and not mandated by the state. If all boys and all girls (or all blacks and all whites) must attend segregated schools, that's not nice. But if there were options available so that you could attend whichever type of school you want, the arguments made in Brown would not apply.

Separate facilities are already funded inequitably because of the way school funding works in most areas.

By this logic of "It didn't work out like the theoretical model and still has a lot of inequality, so we should ban it" we should ban non-segregated schools I guess. Maybe ban public schools in general? I don't know. The logic of making something illegal because it didn't work as expected just doesn't make sense. It can work in principle, that's what counts.

If you're worried about a situation where public officials start making boys schools really awesome and girls schools really bad, then make THAT illegal. Put mechanisms in place to protect against THAT. Do you think that can't be done for some reason?

I know plenty of gender-segregated schools that seem to work out pretty well.

http://education-law.lawyers.c...

Gender-segregation was explicitly carved out as an exception to anti-discrimination laws. "If a private school gets federal funding, it can’t discriminate against a student based on his race, sex (unless it’s a single-sex school), national origin and religion."

There are plenty of single-sex schools that A) operate legally and B) even get federal money.

So clearly segregation works and is seen as "ok" in some cases.