We all have opinions about things, people, situations, so on and so forth. Sometime we talk about and discuss those opinions, sometimes we do not. Today, I'm going to give my two cents on two topics that I have thought about lately and see what other people think of, and what they also think about the topics.
The first one is the Virginia school strike. All 55 counties had no school, meaning over 270,000 kids that were kept out of school this entire time. As someone who once considered going into education to teach children, I knew going in just how the pay was going to be. It's not the best. But I wasn't going into this line of work because of the pay, I was going into it for the students. Do teachers still need to be able to live? Eat and put a roof over their head?
HECK YEAH!
But here is my confusion. In the economic state that most of the country is in right now with not being able to do much money wise because, ya know, trillions of dollars in debt, how can unions decide to go on strike even after getting a raise? With already having minimum wage go up? I know it was only 2%, and that there was only other scheduled raises of 1% in 2020 and 2021, but why would you answer a raise with a strike? Yes, I know the raise wasn't seen as enough, and it definitely didn't address the health care benefits that teachers were looking for. But keeping kids out of school for an entire week, plus since it's been going on for eight days? I don't have children, and I agree with teachers needing more health care benefits and a better salary to be able to live, but I do not agree with a child's education being hindered so much. I love how students stood up with the teachers, that's an amazing show of unity. I'm just thinking there could have been many other ways, ways that wouldn't have kept kids out of school for so long, that the unions and teachers could have protested or argued for better benefits.
This would have also been solved sooner if the senate hadn't vetoed one of the bills, and therefore continued the strike. But there has been a bill that has gone through, and will hopefully be approved by senate, that will let the kids and teachers back into the schools to teach and learn Wednesday, March 7th.
Now my question for the teachers, unions, superintendents, etc., will the students have to make up those days you were on strike and kept them out of school? Cause that is unfair, and I really hope you don't make them. I'm sure they enjoyed the unexpected week long break, but don't take away more of their summer break.
The second topic is feminism. My opinion on feminism is probably not the best, or at least not the best when it comes to the extreme feminists. Not going to lie, I call some of the femi-nazis. Such as the ladies who would like to get rid of the word 'man' from all dictionaries and make it a word that can't be used. That also means getting rid of all words that even have 'man' in it, such as Manchester, manic, management, manicurist, etc. I don't know about you, but I think that's ridiculous and definitely taking it way too far.
The definition of feminism from the Merriam-Webster dictionary is "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes". How is getting rid of the word 'man' in any way, shape, or form a measure to ensure equality between sexes? I'm sure it's going to cause more outrage than anything else, because it's absolutely ridiculous. You want to get rid of a word that you have deemed offensive, whereas the rest of the world uses it all the time. It's not a derogatory word, it's a descriptive word. It describes the genitalia of certain people, but is also used in slang, such as "oh man" or "man, it's been a long day". That would be like me saying that 'lady' or 'girl' is somehow offensive to me, even though they're just descriptions of who a person is, or is identifying as. I'm sorry, but the idea is ludicrous.
I agree with feminism in that I think women who have the same level of education or even high than that of man, should get the same pay that a man does with that level of education. I agree that girls in schools shouldn't be forced to change when soooo many guys go around with their pants almost around their knees and butts hanging out but not forced to change. I think that heavier girls don't get away with as much as the smaller girls, because we have more that seems to show, sometimes no matter what we wear. But if you're going to make a heavier girl change because of something, you better make a smaller girl change for the same exact reason. Or, hey, acknowledge that all females bodies are different and everyone is going to look different even if two girls are wearing the same exact thing!
Anyways, that is my rant, my two cents, on these topics. What are your thoughts and opinions?
