I mean, he’s not wrong. I changed from a registered democrat to no party preference because of the constant pushing of gender ideology and especially its effects on children. I think it’s a bit extreme to say it’ll push people to vote for trump but it certainly has been making women think twice about who they vote for. I also know that small businesses owners in ultra progressive cities have been super fucked by over-extended Covid shutdowns and that’s made them vote republican. There’s a lot of issues that dems are losing ground on. At the end of the day both parties are hell (and both parties are misogynistic) and I wish we didn’t have a two party system.

[–] Ave_Lucifuge gender atheist 24 points Edited
  1. I'm never voting for Trump, lol. Dude should be in jail.

  2. I was never taught CRT (probably because I was forced into Christian school), but I was introduced to the idea of "unpacking" in my early 20s, and as an adult I've found it incredibly helpful in acknowledging and dismantling subconscious biases. I doubt I could process the same information as a kid without feeling ashamed and angry at myself, though. I do think nuanced topics should be left for adults, but refusing to talk to kids about society's ingrained racism would be a terrible mistake.

  3. I hope our POC sisters feel free to speak their mind, I know as a site we seem to be pretty white, so we're looking at this from a different perspective.

  4. I'm still not voting for Drumpf.

[–] MissBehaved 7 points Edited

Seriously how anyone can look at things and say their solution is to vote Republican, especially for someone like Trump, is beyond me. Republicans want women to be kept in the home out of public life raising a brood of children... Children they may not have wanted. They want to punish women for having sex. They want to destroy Lesbian and Gay rights. They want to privatise all public common goods, from healthcare to education to libraries. They want to dismantle any kind of social safety nets, calling such things handouts. They are the party of pro-racism. Yes even if not all Republicans are racist, the party itself supports and allows for racist ideologies and has had openly white supremacist politicians and continues to have support of white nationalists. They greatly dislike immigrants who are the wrong colour and this has been acknowledged publicly by Trump.

Not to mention they lately have been dedicated to the total dismantling of democracy in the USA. Trump's 'jokes' about being president for life were his truthful thoughts and he was testing the waters with those statements. Crying that their loss means the other guy cheated is classic fascist tactics. This is the party that sent a bunch of people to attack congress on January 6th last year and absolutely would have killed several elected officials if they'd gotten access to them (and they VERY NEARLY did).

If you care about women and girls then how can you vote for the people who want to force ten-year-old girls to have their rapist's baby? How can you vote for the party that not only wants to take abortion rights, but aims to take away any form of contraceptives? How can you vote for the party that would put teenage girls in the kitchen of some low value man who raped them?

Absolutely fuck no.

[–] Ave_Lucifuge gender atheist 2 points

Amen sis. I'll always be on the lookout for more options, but sadly I'm not sure I see that happening in my lifetime. Republicans are too far gone.

I’m never voting Trump (or even Republican) but after seeing my senator on that list decimating Title IX I won’t being voting for THEM. I’ll leave it blank.

I've had so many people get pissy at me about this, and the audacity is actually impressive to me.

Roe just fell. Why would anybody expect me, an openly feminist woman, to actively support politicians who brag about removing sex-based rights and protections? Why would they expect anything less than a deep belly laugh from me at the suggestion?

Same here, except I would vote for a sane Republican over Biden or another woman-hater in 2024. Shockingly, I like Liz Cheney, although I disagree with her on almost everything. At least she knows what women are and she has the courage of her convictions and won't lie to us like Biden, the so-called moderate, did.

[–] DonnaMme 8 points Edited

I will not vote for my senator after seeing them on the list for changing Title IX. Can't vote for Biden either and I am one of the few who liked Kamala Harris for the president but she is so beholden to the pronoun cult. If Trump could possibly running I will write in a candidate

He is absolutely correct. Left wing bullshit drove me into the arms of the Tea Party in the early 2000s. And the left has only gotten worse since then. I was driven away by left wing antisemitism and the hypocrisy I noticed amongst my liberal peers when it came to feminism and free speech. And we're already seeing whole movements of previously far left people announcing that they're walking away from the left (Megan Murphy & Arielle Scarcella are two that come to mind). Left wingers and leftie organizations are quick to cast out anyone who deviates even slightly from the modern woke script (especially when it comes to genderwoo). By contrast, right wing spaces are very warm and welcoming to liberal refugees who want a place to engage in political debates and dialog

This is why I can see many liberal women voting Republican in spite of the Roe decision just to fight back against gender shit (especially if the Republicans are smart enough to run someone moderate/sane instead of Trump). We can at least dialog with Republicans about abortion. But Mainstream Democrats are prepared to die on the trans hill

Yet another thread exemplifying why we need a Black Women and/or WOC circles. Supporting a crusty old white guy going off about CRT is not helping our cause.

I get your point but CRT and this heavy focus on race to me is a distraction and doesn’t help my cause either as a WOC.

I agree with having a WOC circle but not all WOC believe in CRT.

Also, I posted this article and I’m white so I wouldn’t post in a WOC circle if one existed because I’m not a WOC so I wouldn’t intrude.

That being said, I posted the article because he mentioned transgenderism is driving parents into the arms of Trump too, and a lot of the people who are campaigning for the end of gender ideology in schools are also campaigning against the way anti-racism is taught in schools.

The two issues are now tied together whether we like it or not.

I would absolutely love to hear the viewpoints of WOC on the topic of CRT, btw, and I can handle having my views shredded, disliked, hated, disapproved of, etc.,

BUT white people should be allowed to discuss what their kids are being taught in schools and their opinions of CRT too as it ultimately affects all of us, and shapes our entire society.

Thank you for posting it, some may not agree it’s a problem but tbh at the end of the day the reason we’re all here is because there were many very mild, harmless discussions we couldn’t have elsewhere bc “it’s hurting a marginalized group”.

I promise you talking about the cons of CRT is not offensive to so many POC who’ve experienced real hurt and racism, often at the hands of other POC.

It’s an “everyone” issue, so anyone should be able to talk about it.

A society that was first shaped by racism. Hell, it's shaped this website. There is a circle for fucking computer games but not one for WOC to talk about feminism on our own.

[–] SecondSkin 11 points Edited

There’s also not one for mothers to talk about mothering while living under patriarchy or how gender ideology effects our children, without us getting plenty demeaning and offensive comments from the misogyny here towards mothers.

9/10 women are mothers, yet we don’t get our own space to talk about feminism and mothering. And get berated plenty just for being breeders on the rest of the site. Maternity and pregnancy is a protected characteristic just like race is, under UK equality act.

They don’t make new circles here, many groups of women are impacted by that here. It’s not just woc, mods/admin are not being racist. There should be space for both circles, but I don’t think mods have resources to set up/run more than they already do.

[–] loren 1 points Edited

It’s a site created for all women to be able to discuss things that all women can be affected by.

Not all women are WOC and I agree we could use a space for that, but how about instead of chastising white women for not creating one for us we see what kind of resources we’d need to create our own?

I don’t push for new circles on this site because I know it runs by volunteer efforts. I don’t have all the skills I need or money to get things like that going on my own, I’m just grateful we have this space that’s maintained by women who want to just give a space to women like me to talk freely.

[–] MenHaveItEasy Moid Respecter 11 points Edited

I second this. I'd love a space for WoC to speak freely, and not be an invitation to debate WoC.

More importantly, I don't know much about CRT. The only information that I've heard has been, "ITS ABOUT WHITE PEOPLE BEING INHERENTLY RACIST."

As you can tell, pretty unbiased, lol. It leaves me in a position to reassure whites that they are not racist, feel bad that they had an unpleasant college course, and that I don't see color.

No, racial issues are complex in the US, and telling people not to question further because it will "ruin race relations" is suspicious.

I run into the problem of having to reassure whites that they are not racist when honestly, some of them kinda are. They're just quiet/unaware of it.

Yeah idk if I’m going nuts but there has been a lot of panic about CRT on here lately. Really not great imo especially since it seems like what schools may or may not be teaching isn’t actually CRT.

I think this article is one of the better ones on the subject, if you are truly interested. I think people around here are perhaps underestimating the intelligence of the rest of us if they think the objection is to teaching about racism in schools. "CRT" is not what is being taught, it's what is being implemented in our public schools in both policy decisions and lesson plans. It will be interesting to see how this pans out but I think this will lead to a massive backlash.


Here is an excerpt:

But, as Jamelle Bouie writes, battles over language are by definition divorced from the material reality that structures inequality.

"We must remember that the problem of racism — of the denial of personhood and of the differential exposure to exploitation and death — will not be resolved by saying the right words or thinking the right thoughts.

That’s because racism does not survive, in the main, because of personal belief and prejudice. It survives because it is inscribed and reinscribed by the relationships and dynamics that structure our society, from segregation and exclusion to inequality and the degradation of labor."

Bouie answers with Martin Luther King Jr.’s admonition to “look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth.”

Telling the truth about King and his politics has always been too much for American liberals. The vulgar version of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” initiatives popular in boardrooms and school workshops is meant to fill the void created by a refusal to assault the roots of racism; they provide a way to talk about racism that strips it of its material reality and slots it instead into the world of individual self-improvement. Without the systemic context, it merely trains people in how to enact roles, identify people failing to play their proper role, and properly “call them out.”

One woman in the focus group, asked how she understood critical race theory, said, “It teaches our kids America is defined by the worst parts of its past.” Instead of hiring corporate consultants to pretend to tear down white supremacy in the classroom, Democrats could dedicate themselves to the pursuit of living up to the values on which the nation claims it was founded...

Teaching the truth about American history, including all of its awfulness, doesn’t require teaching kids that they or their country are defined by the worst of its past. Quite the opposite: America’s greatest heroes have always defined their project within the outlines of the promise and spirit of the nation’s founding, daring and challenging it to live up to its promises.

[–] funfetti 2 points Edited

It’s not you. Republicans and Moms for Liberty (which has been discussed positively here before) think Ruby Bridges Goes to School is CRT.


This site is going to shit thanks to conservative 'gc' bandwagoners imho. Sad.

[–] SecondSkin 0 points Edited

That’s a dickhead thing to say.

I lean much more towards the left than many here, just by being a previous Labour voter within the UK. Because we are a much more left leaning country than the US, even now in our most right leaning incarnation. But while I find Tory policies on everything else horrifying, if it’s the only way to prevent self ID I would vote for them if needed. I’ve always spoiled ballots here, with the stickers or coordinated slogans organised by women’s groups. But if the polls showed my very safe Tory seat would be taken by the opposition-all here who are aggressively pro self ID - then I would prioritise keeping the legal definition of woman the real one. Because every single right my daughters have, is based on that legal definition. And without it then we have no collective women’s vote on women’s issues. We’d become sidelined from engaging in democracy permanently.

Firstly, the horror of extreme left wing is just as bad as extreme ring wing, in reality, in the impact it has on real people. Dismissing conservative women with the sneering as if they are the absolute awful, is insensitive to this fact.

And secondly, you don’t get to gatekeep who cares about safeguarding children, or who wants to be free to tell the truth about biological reality. Or if that takes priority over other issues for these voters.

It’s not ok for posters to claim that other women shouldn’t vote for the left option, in any country, because that is throwing away women’s rights through self ID. It’s not ok the other way round either.

I appreciate that the UK small c conservative is not the US conservative. But this site isn’t just US only. There are plenty other countries that care about this. Even if women are US conservative, they have a right to care about safeguarding dismantled by gender ideology also. Maybe if they weren’t sneered at here they might use discussions to evaluate their thinking on some other issues. Making it us and them is divisive, when this is a cross party issue. Critique the conservative men using valid arguments against gender ideology to reinforce their views by all means, but outside of the site owners no one gets to dictate that Ovarit is not for set groups of women.

An objection to self-ID laws is insufficient to protect women.

Women are endangered more by abortion bans, mandatory arbitration for sexual harassment, shortened statues of limitations on rape/assault cases, caps on tort awards, and restrictions on social welfare, all things which conservatives support.

If anyone thinks they’re protecting women by voting conservative (at least in Anglo countries), they have another thing coming.

The article states that over 184,000 concerned and furious parents commented during the comment period on the changes to Title IX. If Biden pushes through these changes, the Dems are screwed for this year (if done soon) and for 2024. Can you say President DeSantis?? Groan.

I can confirm this is true, at least for me. Losing friends just because I stated that you cannot change your sex has pushed me, a pro-choice and pro-marriage equality woman, to the right. I can have a respectful discussion with a conservative about things like abortion, no matter how much I disagree with them on the matter. I can't have any sort of meaningful dialogue with a leftist, especially about gender ideology.

Six years ago I didn't understand how Trump could have been elected as president. I understand now.

Lots of comments about critical race theory here. Is anyone going to post any actual links -- for instance, links about what CRT is, what "teaching CRT" means in practice, whether it is actually taught in any K-12 school, etc. -- or are we just hashing out baseless opinions here?

The problem with the CRT controversy is that there is no concrete definition. It depends on who is teaching it. The more sane/moderate teachers see it as teaching kids about racial issues and systemic problems in an age appropriate way. But you also have a handful of lunatics who think its appropriate to march into a kindergarten classroom and tell all the White kids that they're violent oppressors, tell all the Black and "Latinx" kids that they're all helpless victims who can do no wrong, tell all the Jewish kids that they're all greedy landlords, and tell all the kids who don't fit into those boxes that they don't exist.

[–] SecondSkin 9 points Edited

This is a UK anti racism group that is against CRT being taught in schools here.


They have lots of information about what was/is being taught here, resources schools use sent in by parents etc.

I don’t know them that well, and wouldn’t say I agree on everything they say. But imho they are right about the harm of UK blindly adopting US CRT teaching, right that schools should remain politically neutral here (it’s in our education act also) and 100% right that CRT is part of why the likes of Rotherham grooming gangs went unquestioned for so so long. MOC intentionally targeted white girls because when the girls spoke up the police/social workers etc silenced their concerns out of fear of being called racist. This went on for years and years and years, these men protected and enabled because they went presented as victims because of their race. The institutions that are supposed to safeguard girls from being victimised, were silencing these girls because these men weren’t white.

Not to mention that white British people are indigenous to the British Isles so men from another culture targeting them is cultural and racial warfare.

I’ve definitely came across articles that report one of the reasons these men targeted white girls, as well as knowing that they would get away with it because fear of being called racist would silence concerns, was that they viewed white girls, and British culture/British girls, as sluts and asking for it.

I don’t know if that’s verified, but I remember it reported in msm repeatedly at the time.

The same way young woc are seen as more sexual and easier targets because of racism in the US, these white girls (all poor and many under LAC) were seen as easy targets who were asking to be raped.

The same hyper sexualised stereotypes are aimed at Eastern Europeans very strongly here (it’s often assumed they were trafficked into the country for sex trade, and somehow that’s turned round as a way of thinking of them as whores🙄) and sexualised stereotypes are aimed at Irish women in mainland UK. And most especially the traveller community (who obviously here are often Irish also). The traveler girls especially are not only seen as easy slags by men, but women here judge them harshly as tacky and cheap and boring and simple. When some of these communities take girls out of school 11/12 to learn how to clean and keep the home and help the mum to do the women’s work, there’s huge disregard of the vulnerability of these girls by most people. If it was a girl of Indian decent here removed from school young and married off at 16, then there’s outrage (rightly so) but general ime I find people simply don’t care when it’s traveller girls this happens to. There’s not just the sexualised misogyny towards them from men here, but women write them off as just being bred to be some man’s submissive housewife.

Maybe this is the area of England I live in. And my view of it differing because I didn’t grow up here. But I find the traveller communities here are just so unseen, so written off and the misogyny and victimisation the girls face is something no one cares about here.

I mean, I don't know if there is a similar phenomenon that ever happened in the US. Probably. I am white. My family has been here for 400 years at this point. I am practically indigenous to the US. I have no right of return anywhere. I have such a mix of ethnicities in me that I can't claim to be anything but American white. I don't see how being "indigenous" as a white person in Europe changes anything. It's still wrong for men to prey upon girls, regardless of race.

There's a few pods that address it. The Glen Show with Glen Loury and John Mcwhorter is a good one. They're on YouTube. There's also The Complete Evergreen Story, also on YouTube.

[–] Kevina 4 points Edited

I was taught a form of CRT when i went to school in the 80s. It went something like this...

"Life isn't fair. Yes, you might have to work harder than Billy if you want to succeed because Billy is wealthier/privileged race/family has money/he's better looking/smarter/he has 6 fingers and you only have 5. That's not your fault and it's not Billy's fault. That's life, and life isn't fair."

I’m super confused about the CRT thing. I heard it was only taught in college level courses, but now they’re showing it to kids?

[–] ProMoleratWaxer #1 Worst Poster 7 points

I don't really know what the problem is with CRT

Being white doesn’t automatically make someone racist.

Critical Race Theory makes the assumption that majority groups are always purposely racist and that everyone in the majority is in on it but it only applies to cultures where people are white.

Teaching it also doesn’t work. Identity politics just results in white people avoiding people who aren’t white because they assume the people who aren’t white believe they are horrible racists and thus won’t want anything to do with them, and that ends up perpetuating segregation.

Shame doesn’t create change.

Critical Race Theory makes the assumption that majority groups are always purposely racist and that everyone in the majority is in on it but it only applies to cultures where people are white.

This is my issue with it as well. CRT is predicted on the simplistic, American view that ALL racism/discrimination boils down to "White vs Black". Which erases the experiences of folks whose experiences don't fit into that binary. A lot of CRT also wanders into antisemitism because it sees Jews as a sub category of White. So Jews are expected to apologize for their "privilege" and not complain about the concerning rise of antisemitism in Black communities because "Black people cannot be racist"

I think it could be taught, but we don't always do a great job of it.

I see some good, some not so good things in American schools. The good: more of our American history is being taught. Kids are not typically being asked to feel bad about what someone did in history, but there is more discussion about what it was like to be part of the American experience from a variety of standpoints. Also, more women and people from underrepresented groups are being acknowledged for their contributions in a lot of fields. The bad: Black and other kids in underrepresented or disadvantaged groups are being traumatized to a certain degree, and taught to expect violence from police and others who are racist. The exercises that show if you have privilege or whatever, usually are just as uncomfortable for the underprivileged as they are for the privileged in the class. Finally, drugs are a thing and the gangs that run them are latino in my area, but there's a reluctance by white elites to just acknowledge that, so it's a bit tougher to address.

[–] ProMoleratWaxer #1 Worst Poster 12 points

They're not saying white people are racist they're saying systematic racism is a thing that (country dependant) some ethnicities will automatically be at an advantage. It's like gender critical theory doesn't mean every male is a sexual assault homicide they just generally benefit from other men that are and create systematic advantages for them historically. It also applies to like the Irish and English and such who are both currently 'white'

[–] Hera 31 points

I used to think the same way until I started to look into how it's being taught in American schools and how kids are internalizing certain concepts that they are way too young to unpack. I wish it was being taught in the way you describe, because if it was, there would be no issue, as it's important for kids to understand how race impacts them and to understand and learn from the dark parts of history. However, it's increasingly evident that such isn't how it's being portrayed in many American schools.

From what I have seen, the way the material (all to often warped by the same activist teachers pushing gender theory) frames it isn't in an objective way about how race relates to oppression, and more from a white apologist lens that, ironically, encourages segregation and encourages children to lower reasonable boundaries, ie: "you are automatically bad and racist because you are white [or, in some cases, east asian]". Often, they are framing it in a way that says to children, "YOU are directly responsible for 100+ year old atrocities because you MIGHT be distantly related to someone who was." I've heard several horror stories from parents along the lines of, "my son came home in tears because he now think's he's a bad person who can no longer hang out with his best friend because the friend is black and my son is white." An adult, of course, knows this is bullshit, but kids in grade and high school are more apt to internalize this in harmful ways.

If these slacktivist teachers aren't going to teach it right, it needs to stop until we can overhaul this mess and hire good folks who will.

I had to say I'm racist because I'm white and benefited from my white privilege (unpack the knapsack of white privilege - that 'seminal' essay).

In other examples of CRT I've seen, people also have to make the same admissions.

So, I don't know. IME it was explicit. If you were white you literally had to write essays that said I am racist (or suffer - grade-wise).

I haven't taught CRT as such, but I have taught African American literature--which I should not have done, because I'm white, but adjuncts gotta eat. If my fee fees had gotten hurt and I had run out crying every time a mean white person were mentioned, that would be on me, not on an educational system that (occasionally) asks white people look at what we've done and continue to do.

Your "be nice to the people who oppress you" spiel reminds me of fools who think that if women are Sufficiently Nice to men, they'll stop raping and killing us. It hasn't worked yet. Allowing white people to walk around ignorant of our history is not going to cure racism, either.

And I think shame does sometimes have the potential to create change. In the Civil Rights era, when white people actually had to look at black people being beaten on national TV for demanding their rights, some changes were made.

[–] VestalVirgin 20 points Edited

And I think shame does sometimes have the potential to create change. In the Civil Rights era, when white people actually had to look at black people being beaten on national TV for demanding their rights, some changes were made.

Shame only creates change if you shame the people who are actively responsible.

I don't see how shaming schoolchildren over something they had no part in changes anything for the better.

Transactivists should be shamed for forcing women in prison to share cells with male rapists. That would contribute something. Interestingly, I've heard most women in prison in the US are black.

Transactivists love talking about racism in a generalizing "Oh woe is us, we white people are all bad and racist" way, but when it comes to what they are actually doing to black women, they don't like one bit hearing about that.

So yeah. I think some white SJWs actually enjoy wallowing in their pretend shame over the crimes of their ancestors. No use in helping them do that. Gotta shame them about the things they are really responsible for, they are really doing right now.

shame does sometimes have the potential to create change. In the Civil Rights era, when white people actually had to look at black people being beaten on national TV for demanding their rights, some changes were made.

Seeing such scenes on TV provoked white people (and people of other races and ethnicities too) to feel outrage, horror, anger, disgust much more than shame. Righteous anger and horror at injustice emboldens people to stand up, speak out and fight against the injustice. Shame doesn't do that at all. Shame causes people to want to cover their faces, crawl into a hole, sink into the ground, hide themselves away, disappear and die.

A similar thing happened due to all the film and video footage shown on international TV during the apartheid era of black people in South Africa being set on by attack dogs, beaten by police, shot at by troops etc. People of all races around the world reacted with outrage, horror, disgust and anger to what they/we saw - not personal shame. Apartheid was brought to an end not because the Afrikaners directly responsible for it watched the footage and started feeling shame, but because black people and other racial minorities who lived under apartheid fought back over many decades - and over time, the international community increasingly grew outraged and angry and disgusted at the Afrikaner government and supported the anti-apartheid movement and ANC. This led to most of the other nations of the world and all major industries and institutions from the armament manufacturers to music promoters to the Olympics and IAAF boycotting South Africa and enforcing a host of economic and other kinds of sanctions against the SA government and the SA populace.

Yes, many decent white people who lived in SA did feel shame over apartheid. But the shame that some white people in SA felt did not empower and embolden them to take down apartheid - it mostly made them want to hide their own embarrassed faces from public view, and made many want to emigrate too. Shame-filled white South Africans can hardly be held responsible for ending apartheid, just as shame-filled white Americans can't be credited with being the major forces in the US civil rights movement.

If you want to motivate people to do the right thing and be brave enough to stand up and fight against injustices being done to other people, the last thing you should try to do is make them feel that they are inherently bad people who are responsible for bringing about that very injustice in the first place. Feelings of personal shame, embarrassment, humiliation, mortification etc are very poor motivators for positive social change. Such feelings are much more likely to drive people to drink, use drugs, isolate themselves and become dispirited and filled with hopelessness and despair than to inspire them to go out and organize, mobilize, write letters, petition, campaign, march, give speeches, draft laws etc in order to bring about meaningful change in the world.

Allowing white people to walk around ignorant of our history is not going to cure racism, either.

There has to be a middle ground between total ignorance and teaching White kids in elementary schools that they're all racist, violent oppressors and that they're all privileged over the Black kids no matter what their actual life circumstances are

Being white doesn’t mean always having an historical ethnic advantage, or not facing ethnic discrimination.

You’re obviously from a white majority ethnic background. I am not.

[–] vulvapeople 20 points Edited

To be clear, CRT is not what progressives like to pretend it is, simply teaching kids full history, not the sanitized version, or telling kids to respect people regardless of race. Those kinds of lessons have already been taught in schools, maybe not effectively, but it's in the curriculum.

CRT claims that systematic racism is present in every institution in the U.S. and is responsible for differences in outcomes between groups. It's advanced college material and, at best, will confuse children. I see it being taught to kids as akin to teaching them about advanced gender "theory". They don't have the cognition or life experience to think critically about what they're hearing, which I think is exactly the point.

I mean, there is a lot of systemic racism and it needs to be taught. Jim Crow laws, the way city planning and especially highway building broke Black neighborhoods, all this needs to be taught. If we present the facts, people will know what happened and react accordingly.

It does seem a few places have started laying the guilt trip on white kids, but how widespread is this really, or is it just a few places that were well meaning but dumb?

Fact based teaching is relatively uncontroversial.

I don't know anyone who thinks teaching about the history of red lining is inappropriate.

It's when you add theory that it gets controversial.

It seems to have a far reach even into districts I wouldn't expect, such as in conservative, rural areas.

Truth be told, the main reason I'm skeptical that these lesson plans are good for kids and race relations is because of the progressive dissembling over it. We all know gender lessons in schools are poison, and progressives consistently hide, deny, and lie about what they're teaching. They also happen to behave this way whenever "CRT" is criticized or questioned, so that raises my suspicions. It could be that that's just how they react to any criticism, even of things that are objectively good, but I worry the smoke really is indicating fire.

High school teachers are not going to teach it right and mandatory education should be free of ideology. CRT should be an elective University class.

Even in elementary school children should be taught that we are hopefully better than this now and that in the past people/leaders committed atrocities. This should be done without piling on guilt.

A lot of CRT is just regular history. Slavery, Jim crow... these things can and should be taught at all levels.

History should be taught but CRT is an ideology like radical feminism. Just because I think some ideologies are beneficial, doesn't mean I want them to be imposed on school children.

Mandatory education should be unbiased.

[–] LunarMoose 15 points Edited

I took this class way back when and have written about it before. In my class, people were either livid or ran for an 'identity' cover. (You know, sure, I'm a white woman who is racist - you had to say you were racist or you did not pass the class. I mean that. We wrote papers and had to say just that.)

So, the identity cover: Yeah, I'm a white woman who is racist, BUT I have a mental illness, grew up in chaos, was abused, was the victim of rape. Anything that wouldn't make you into the big bad racist (I'm simplifying the thinking - but you understand the 'tactic' I'm sure)

So, I did that for a full 6 months (sigh). My daughter's class was very similar (many, many years after my class - and hers was in HS). The thing that was similar was that the kids were outing themselves - 'running for identity cover'. So, kids were saying, yeah, but I grew up in poverty, without a father, with mental illness. Or, I'm queer......... Same damn thing (strategy-wise) my graduate school class had done so many years prior.

I am all for CRT as a thought experiment, as a theoretical bias - whatever. Teach it critically (all theories should be open for refutation). In my class, you couldn't refute it (or you got a B or C or worse. As you probably know, if you critique CRT in a workshop, you are told that you are doing so because you are racist and privileged. Somehow, this has gone from being an interesting theory (that can be helpful) to what someone noted when I wrote about it before....a struggle session.

If it is taught as a theory, one of several, and open to debate - sure. Go ahead. If it is taught as the only truth? I'm totally opposed. Especially in HS - because it forces the kids to talk to much about their private lives. It's like a struggle session mixed in with therapy. I don't think HS students should have to do all of that (imho)

I don't really know what the problem is with CRT

Its a politically biased ideology that has no place in public schools that can barely handle teaching kids basic reading and math.

Load more (2 comments)
Load more (5 comments)