Facebook user hits back at friend who told her she only got into Yale med school because of her 'white privilege'

White privilege is evident in society whether or not people choose to see it but in the case of a student who got into medical school, the accusation was misplaced.

In a Facebook post that has since gone viral a determined student was cruelly shamed after she shared her excitement over getting into Yale medical school, saying, 'Thank you everyone for all your support!! I'm so happy to say after years of hard work I have been accepted into Yale med school!!!'

But instead of a congratulatory post, one friend on the platform commented that she only got into the prestigious university program because of her 'white privilege'.

She said: 'Good job, might I add a shout out to your white privilege for you,' followed by the hand clapping emoji.

But the accomplished graduate wasn't having it and defended herself in a series of posts shedding light on her incredibly troubled upbringing, revealing how she has remained resolute in her studies throughout the years.

In a Facebook thread, she told Melissa, the girl who accused her of getting into med school because she was white, that she had grown up in a foster home after her alcoholic parents gave her up when she was five years old.

'Melissa, I grew up in a foster home. Both my parents were alcoholics and gave me up when I was five,' she wrote.

She continued: 'I had to take care of my brother for two years until we got adopted and even then we were both abused by that family and had to go back into the orphanage for another two years.'

But even through her less than ideal upbringing, the hopeful doctor still managed to get good grades, go to a decent college and get scholarships to help pay for her tuition.

'I spent long nights studying and working part-time in high school just to support myself and my brother,' she said. 'I was lucky enough to have good grades to get into a decent undergrad.'

She spent her high school and college careers staying up late but rather than at parties, she lost sleep during study groups and her job until she 'finally got accepted to her top choice' medical school. 

And instead of taking this as a moment to apologize or simply explain her point of view on a controversial topic she continued to patronize the med student.

She said: 'Umm okay sweetie, you claim to understand privilege but you can't even self critique [sic] buh bye.'

People took to Facebook to share their disdain toward Melissa who felt the need to diminish her friend's accomplishments.

One Facebook user said: 'Oh my gosh this p****d me off so bad. She didn't get into Yale because she is white. She got into Yale because she worked her butt off and earned it.'
You deserve it: And other shared his disgust for those who try to make people feel like they don't deserve their achievements

You deserve it: And other shared his disgust for those who try to make people feel like they don't deserve their achievements

Another said that med school admit should be congratulated for achieving 'all she has' because she worked hard to get where she is. The post continued by advising her to not listen to negative comments.

But all comments weren't negative as another person bothered by the exchange, shared the thread and their frustration over the situation saying, 'Congrats to this girl for getting into Yale Med. Simply disgusted by whoever is trying to make them feel like they don't deserve it.'

In the Facebook thread defending herself, she mentioned that instead of being helpful and explaining her perspective, Melissa was being 'condescending' when she said she understood the concept of white privilege. 

SOURCE




The brutal truth: The demise of the stay-at-home mother IS harming children... and I'm as guilty as any working mum, writes SARAH VINE

Sometimes in life you just have to smash the glass and pull the emergency brake, even if it means incurring the wrath of some of your fellow passengers.

That is precisely what Esther Rantzen, founder of Childline, did the other day when she wrote an article outlining in stark terms the psychological repercussions on children of having both parents who work.

‘Time is the greatest gift we can give our own children, yet in Britain today it is the scarcest resource we have, especially for working parents,’ she said.

‘These days most parents work, often long hours,’ she continued. ‘I remember speaking to a teenage boy who was suffering very serious problems. I suggested to him his mother would want to know.

‘He replied: “When she gets home from work she’s so tired she can’t talk to me.” I asked if the weekends might give them the chance to talk. “She works in a shop,” he told me. “She never has a day off.” ’

I don’t imagine Rantzen’s comments will have won her many fans among hardline feminists. But her concerns bear serious consideration. After all, her experience in the field of troubled children is unique.

Childline is 30 years old, the first initiative of its kind — a dedicated service for children where, free from adult influence, they can talk openly and honestly about their problems. It is perfectly placed to have an unbiased view of what troubles them and of the cause of those troubles.

Barely a week seems to go by without another report claiming rising levels of anxiety and depression among young people. And unlike when Childline began, these feelings are not so much triggered by abuse or neglect (although that still happens far too often) but rather a generalised sense of unease and worry.

So what’s causing this?

According to the experts at Childine, there are a number of factors at play, not least the impact of the internet and social media on the developing mind.

But there is something else, too, a far less headline-grabbing but in many ways more complex problem: parental absence and, in particular, the absence of a mother figure.

A loving, nurturing, caring person in their lives, someone to set boundaries, lend structure, provide support and encouragement — and create a calm, safe environment in which they can flourish.

Childline carried out 22,456 counselling sessions in 2016 with children as young as ten who were suffering suicidal thoughts, up 15 per cent from the previous year. This sharp increase points to one thing: children simply don’t know who to turn to any more.

In the past, there was never much confusion about who was in charge of pastoral care in the home. Such a person used to be called a housewife, and many women saw it as a privilege to carry that title.

It meant being a home-maker, a mother, a matriarch, shaping the lives of those around you, passing on your wisdom and knowledge, nurturing — and yes, at times putting others before yourself.

As Rantzen points out: ‘My mother proudly called herself a “housewife”. A clever woman, she never had the chance to test her talent in the workplace and while I have no desire to turn the clock back, as her child I always knew that she was focused on us, her daughters. That we came first.’

Women such as Rantzen’s mother used to be the norm; now they are the exception. Decades of feminism have seen to that, combined with the changing economic landscapes.

And while the stereotype of the emancipated female, forging ahead in the workplace, challenging the men at their own game in many cases still stands, the reality is that many of these mothers work not because they want to but because they have to.

Rising living costs, soaring house prices and a changing employment market in which manufacturing jobs have been replaced by the service sector, mean the old-fashioned model of a father who works and a mother who stays at home is becoming less viable.

Most families need two incomes just to keep a roof over their heads, and even then they find themselves struggling.

Little wonder that more than 70 per cent of mothers have some form of paid employment, and that number is rising.

While concerns about the possible impact on younger generations have been rumbling on for decades — when I was young I remember endless debates about ‘latchkey kids’ — it remains one of those subjects that is very hard to debate objectively.

The reason is simple: working mothers such as myself are quick to defend our choices and highly sensitive about any suggestion that the way we conduct ourselves as parents might in any way prove detrimental to our children.

We are role models aren’t we? We make up for times away from our children in other ways, don’t we?

And at the end of the day, we are intelligent women: work is what keeps us sane.

But while mothers such as myself, who enjoy fulfilling careers and contribute to the income both of our own families and the national exchequer, would die in a ditch to defend the right to work, I would be lying if I didn’t admit there have been times when my family has suffered.

My husband was filling in an online form for a new NHS surgery.

In answer to the ethnicity question he chose ‘white Scottish’ from the drop-down menu.

Whereupon the next question was: ‘Do you require an interpreter?’

How often have I been too tired to help my children with homework? Or too stressed to hear that small voice? Or distracted at the very moment I could have made all the difference?

Now they are 13 and 14, they tell me themselves. It is they who have to snap my laptop shut; they who have to make themselves supper if I’m working late, or run to the shops to get milk.

Only the other night, my son — who had been waiting patiently for help with an English essay while I was working — lost his temper through frustration and exhaustion. By the time I had finished, he was too tired to do any more homework. There was no getting around it: I had prioritised my work over his.

I have no idea if either of my children have ever called Childline — although they have threatened (I think, hope) in jest. But my situation is emblematic of what Esther Rantzen is talking about.

Even though I am lucky enough to have flexible hours and can work from home, there are times when my work is all-consuming.

I tell myself, of course, that by not acting as their slave, I am teaching them self-sufficiency. But I simply don’t know how else my job might be affecting them.

Because while most people assume the early years are the hardest for working mothers, given the unique pressures of 21st-century living that is not longer the case. Admittedly they don’t need so much practical support as they get older; but emotionally they are much more vulnerable.

The life of a modern teenager has never been more fraught in terms of mental health. Last week, a study by the University of Manchester revealed self-harm among teenage girls had increased 68 per cent in the past three years.

Both of my children experience a range of anxieties I would never even have dreamt of when I was their age, and there is no doubt social media and technology play a significant role in this.

The irony is that at a time when more mothers than ever are in work, it is becoming more vital that our children have someone at home who can offer a shoulder to cry on.

There is one simple truth: in the 21st century children need their mothers more than ever; but we are simply not there for them.

The time has come for women like myself to admit what we all secretly already knew. When it comes to the question of how we reconcile our duty as a mum with our intellectual ambitions, we don’t have a satisfactory answer.

Whenever someone raises it, the various factions rush straight to their battle stations — perpetuating the great feminist lie: that women can have it all.

Among young women of my generation at least, this has always been the assumption. It was our job to take up the opportunities gifted to us by the previous generation of feminists. The focus was on pursuing a career first, marriage and motherhood second.

Cooking, cleaning and choosing curtains was beneath us; instead, we studied hard and worked long hours alongside the men.

The upside was that the world finally began to take us seriously.

The downside — which we never saw coming — was that something had to give. That something, it is increasingly becoming apparent, was the mental health and well-being of subsequent generations.
BBC double standards

A Conservative MP cautiously and politely questions university attitudes towards Brexit in a carefully worded letter; BBC reacts with hysteria across all channels.

Labour MP Jared O’Mara viciously insults gay people and calls women ‘fatties’ and ‘ugly bitches’, Spanish, ‘dagos’, Danes, ‘pig shaggers’. Barely registers a blip on the lunchtime news.

For, as the NSPCC and other child-focused organisations are forever reminding us, the past three decades have seen a gradual decline in happiness among children and the quality of childhood. Generation X has given rise to Generation Neglect. One of the most heartbreaking things Rantzen pointed out is that many young people shield their parents from what’s going on in their lives because they either don’t want to add to their burden, or think they will be too busy to help.

‘They protect their parents from knowing they are being badly bullied, or abused,’ she said, adding, ‘perhaps that is why they turn to online friends or strangers, to have someone to talk to. But the online world brings new risks and pressures: cyber-bullying, online groomers, the culture of “sexting” explicit images of themselves, and the easy availability of porn.’

We think of the internet as something that reaches into children’s lives; but the notion of children reaching out online to strangers because the emotional landscape at home is so barren had never occurred to me.

In 2015, a study by Harvard Business School found that in two-parent families with reasonable incomes, children of working mothers were at a distinct disadvantage. It said: ‘Employment was associated with negative child outcomes when families were not at risk financially (i.e., when families were middle or upper-middle class).’

Young children need to play and explore in an environment where they feel safe, special and loved. For infants, this means with care-givers to whom they feel they belong. Quite simply, their mothers.

No one wants to return to the days when married women weren’t allowed to work. But between that and feminism’s utopian dream must lie a place where mothers can be mothers and children can be children without either losing out. Perhaps that starts with recognising the value of working for something more than the money and the glory: a happy, stable home where the next generation can grow and flourish.

A novel concept indeed.

SOURCE






A study reveals overwhelming MSM pro-Clinton bias as they speak about limiting "fake news."

If one blatantly dismisses all accusation of bias as patently false when data would suggest otherwise, one will find little sympathy to accept one’s accusation of another as guilty of the same sin. Or to put it in more common parlance, it’s the pot calling the kettle black.

Robert Epstein of the American Institute for Behavioral Research and Technology, in the run-up to the presidential election, ran an experiment to determine just how biased toward leftist politics were the nation’s leading social media giants. As Frank Foer, a writer for The Atlantic, describes, “The social media companies are the gatekeepers. Whatever choices these companies make to elevate or bury information is very powerful and will have a big impact on what people read.” Epstein found that Google searches returned twice as many pro-Hillary Clinton news articles as did Yahoo. Even more disturbing was Google’s targeting tactic. Men in blue states saw more than double the pro-Clinton articles than did women in red states. Epstein charges that Google’s search algorithm ranked pro-Hillary articles ahead of any positive articles on Donald Trump.

Another study conducted by Nicholas Diakopoulos, a professor at Northwestern University, found that in December 2015 Google search results of presidential candidates showed seven out of every 10 articles were positive toward Democrats, whereas less than six out of 10 were positive for Republican candidates. We’re surprised it was that high. On election night, only 1% of 113 featured Google election-related searches produced articles from conservative news sources.

Meanwhile, in spite of the mainstream media’s overwhelmingly negative coverage of Donald Trump, he won the election, which prompted the MSM to immediately lob charges of a dubious Trump/Russia collusion conspiracy as well as the “major” problem of “fake news.” Facebook later announced that it would be looking to develop programs to limit fake news, especially from the Russians. But conservative media outlets began to see more of their content limited on leading social media sites, such as Prager University witnessing much of its content on Google-owned YouTube being labeled as restricted for no apparent reason other than the fact that it promotes conservative ideology.

So, is it really the Russians that the MSM and the social media giants are seeking to stop? If it is, they don’t seem to be doing a very good job. The Wall Street Journal reports that the Russian state-run news network RT is thriving on YouTube and Facebook. RT’s English language YouTube channel has garnered more than 2.1 billion views and has 2.2 million subscribers, putting it on par with CNN’s YouTube channel. Add another 3.3 billion views from 20 other RT-related YouTube channels and one can clearly see that the Russians are having little trouble getting their message into American media.

The Journal reports, “Unlike other government-funded news outlets, such as the U.K.‘s BBC or the U.S.’s Radio Free Europe, researchers say RT is more overtly political, with a goal of undermining Western institutions and democracies. … Researchers and former RT employees say the outlet highlights conflict in the West, questions prevailing narratives in Western media and promotes conspiracy theories.”

Humorously, CNN has just launched an ad campaign entitled “Facts First” designed to sell its brand as genuinely real news from a trusted source as opposed to fake news. The ad features an apple with a voice over telling viewers not to believe those who would say it is a banana. CNN, dost thou protest too much?

SOURCE





ACLU aims to stop transgender bathroom initiative in Montana

The ACLU of Montana filed a lawsuit Tuesday challenging the constitutionality of a proposed ballot initiative that would require transgender residents to use public bathrooms and locker rooms that correspond with their sex at birth.

The lawsuit was filed in District Court in Cascade County on behalf of seven transgender Montanans, the parents of a transgender 9-year-old and the city of Missoula. The Bozeman City Commission voted Monday to join the effort.

"This proposed measure legalizes discrimination," said Alex Rate, legal director for the ACLU of Montana.

The ACLU and the plaintiffs argue the Locker Room Privacy Act would deprive transgender Montanans of equal protection under the law and violate their rights to privacy, dignity and due process.

The lawsuit asks the court to declare the initiative unconstitutional and to prevent Secretary of State Corey Stapleton from placing it on the November 2018 ballot.

The Montana Family Foundation is sponsoring the initiative. Foundation president Jeff Lazloffy has argued that predators claim they are transgender to access public bathrooms used by the opposite sex.

"High school girls shouldn't be forced to shower in front of a boy, even if he does think he's a girl," Lazloffy said in a statement Tuesday. "Boys shouldn't have to change clothes in front of a girl, even if she thinks she's a boy. It's just common sense."

Lazloffy said Initiative 183 offers solutions such as single-stall changing facilities.

While his arguments center on locker room use, plaintiffs focused on the initiative as it would apply to public restrooms.

"This morning, I walked down the hall and used the women's restroom," transgender plaintiff Roberta Zenker told those gathered at the Capitol Rotunda. "It was not lost on me that if I-183 passes, I would not be able to use that restroom."

The law would force her to use the men's restroom and face possible harassment, humiliation and embarrassment or risk breaking the law by using the women's restroom, she said.

"What better way to discriminate against a class of people than to effectively exclude them from public places," said Zenker, who transitioned to a woman 11 years ago.

Lazloffy argued the lawsuit is premature because the initiative has not yet qualified for the ballot. Supporters have until June to gather the nearly 26,000 signatures needed.

Rate noted that in an earlier case challenging the constitutionality of a ballot measure, former Montana Supreme Court Justice Jim Nelson wrote that placing a facially invalid measure on the ballot would be a waste of time and money for all involved.

The high court ruled last month that the ballot language approved for the initiative needed to be re-written because it did not include the initiative's definition of sex and was otherwise vague.

Rate said he hoped the judge would rule before the November 2018 election.

SOURCE

*************************

Political correctness is most pervasive in universities and colleges but I rarely report the  incidents concerned here as I have a separate blog for educational matters.

American "liberals" often deny being Leftists and say that they are very different from the Communist rulers of  other countries.  The only real difference, however, is how much power they have.  In America, their power is limited by democracy.  To see what they WOULD be like with more power, look at where they ARE already  very powerful: in America's educational system -- particularly in the universities and colleges.  They show there the same respect for free-speech and political diversity that Stalin did:  None.  So look to the colleges to see  what the whole country would be like if "liberals" had their way.  It would be a dictatorship.

For more postings from me, see TONGUE-TIED, GREENIE WATCH,   EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS and  DISSECTING LEFTISM.   My Home Pages are here or   here or   here.  Email me (John Ray) here.  Email me (John Ray) here. 

***************************