“Gay lessons” in Maths, Geography and Science

David Davis

I lift the following comment from the Daily Telegraph’s comment-thread on this subject. The purpose of education is to educate people to understand the wonders of the universe, and to see to what extent Man might be small but that yet his Mind is a giant, to comprehend it.

The introduction of “gay” slants and nuances to questions is rather like what Baldur von Schirach did to German schools in the 1930s, with “National Socialist Mathematics”… such as :-

“Gunther can kill three Jews in 32 minutes, but Helmut can kill five in 40 minutes. At what time after the start of the experiment will they be exactly killing one Jew each at the same moment?” (This is a problem about the “Lowest Common Multiple” concept.)

Look, I’m not saying that nobody ought to be gay, or indeed is gay at all, although I privately believe that the whole “gayness” thing is a put-up-job. I have for long now, thought that the supposed widespread (and so we are told, increasing) spread of “gayness” is manufactured by the GramscoStalinsists as a way to undermine traditional human familial relationships to make the glue of them easier for an all-powerful-state to dissolve further. And I also believe that there is a population of humans, mostly men, who go along with the gayness thing for cultural reasons (it makes them more sexually-attractive to certain types of women) and particularly because they are very welcome in “night clubs” because they spend money.

But I could be wrong, of course, on all these counts, since I don’t know anything about modern culture or indeed post-modern culture, whatever that is, or today’s “empowered” women, or night clubs, or about money.


40 minutes ago

Recommended by
2 people

The whole thing is a side issue.

Our national curricula need to be torn up completely , there is no sense to it at all. I am a former teacher, a grammar school pupil in the late sixties, having taught in Inner London Comprehensives, I have been through it all.

The last thing we need is another initiative. The school I attended is now one of the lowest ranking and has been under OFSTED measures. When I attended everyone was taught Latin for the first two years, after which it was up to you. From my class two pupils went up to Oxbridge reading Medicine and one for Music. During my schools transition from Grammar, to Secondary Modern and Comprehensive, alarm clocks were handed out to all because of the tardiness in time keeping. Our head mistress headed the national conference and spoke out against the proposed changes, it was all downhill after that. My chemistry and biology teacher had doctorates, they have trouble filling positions now.

Large proportions of children in the Inner Borough’s of London do not read, write or speak English. Large number are classed as having other special needs.

Curricula needs to emphasise a high level of skill in reading, nothing can be achieved without that. Across the world it is obvious that the most successful methods of education are the traditional ones.

More than our curricula, our whole means of delivering education needs to be looked at. It is not immediately obvious that the state ought to play any part. Conversely, that always opens the system to the pursuit of a political agenda.

The state ought to be excised completely from the educative process. Parents ought to have the basic freedoms to choose what their children are taught. The only way to achieve this is to place funding, and purchasing power directly into the parent’s hand. This places emphasis on the schools to compete for pupils rather than the other way round. Strong schools will prosper and the weak will fail and there is a more efficient allocation of resources, bringing the overall budget down.

This would be across the tiers, nursery to university. Apart from the basics and languages, institutions could be free to do what they want.

It is not suitable that the apogee of attainment for any pupil at school should be a clutch of A levels, which are not really of much worth. Some people want to leave being able to build houses. And there are many other suitable outcomes for pupils not possible the ways things are. This country needs a base of skill sets that are not catered for. This is a huge gap in our system.

It is a parent that knows its child best and is best placed to identify its needs. You can’t fit them all in one size. Britain has capabilities but we are stripping her of her skills.

I suspect under such a system we would have far fewer media degrees. Certainly there would be more doctors, dentists and the like. and as importantly a range of engineers and technicians. Administration would be minimal and we would no longer be having debates like this.

6 responses to ““Gay lessons” in Maths, Geography and Science

  1. I think the red text looks bloody stupid.

  2. Mario, I use red text to highlight long bits that I have lifted bodily from somewhere else. It is to differentiate it from things we have written ourselves, that’s all.

  3. Pingback: This just highlights the problems we libertarians face | The Libertarian Alliance: BLOG

  4. To be blunt I find the gay reference a little offensive. I am gay, differences in sexuality do exist. This however is a non-issue.

    The problems with education are evident to any intelligent person who has had to put up with the sector for the last 20 years – particularly A Levels, and degrees.

    I was promised through my GCSEs that I should learn to jump through the hoops, and at A levels they would test what I know (some “right” answers in GCSE science are actually “wrong” if you apply a level of knowledge from a degree/A-level, similar to “no marks if you don’t show your working no matter how obvious this trivial maths problem is”. At A-level, hoop-jumping was still the case. I was told university would be better. It wasn’t.

    I’m now happily self employed – but try being a gay libertarian working in the arts…

  5. Personally I would prefer a non inclusion of any group. Maths is maths, you could incorporate the social and demographic status of a country in the teaching of sociology and through civics via history and socio-economic subjects also by understanding and using the national statistics, which are on line and provided by a number of UK and world agencies.

    History is written by the victors, there is no such thing as objective history. Blacks, Asians, Orientals as well as the homosexual and lesbian people within those groups, have all had some impact some way or another on British society; civil rights and civic rights in particular.

    There is no such thing as a Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Society – it does not exist. It is a group of individuals withing organisations such as Stonewall and Outrage for instance that are vocal in attempting to get equal civil and civic rights for those who are sexually orientated differently from heterosexuals. But that is the only common denominator – same sex orientation.

    Lesbians will still say the homosexual is still a man and has a better social chance in society than a woman. The homosexual man still has the same life chances, now days, as heterosexual men, more so than heterosexual women, or lesbians. What makes this so? Not being homosexual or a lesbian but being a woman or a man.

    To class all sexual categories “LGBT” to mean they all have a common goal or same outlook on life is ridiculous – its akin to saying all black men think about and want the same things. The only thing common is they wish to not be discriminated against.

    History is full of achievers who did what they did firstly because they could, secondly for the sake of their fellow man and thirdly to make people aware, admitted not necessarily in that order. I contest they achieved because of their sexual orientation.

    In education there are areas where you can discuss diversity of sexual orientation. Unless someone convinces me that someone became successful or made a difference to society totally on the grounds that they were homosexual, lesbian, a bi-sexual person or a sexual realigned person I suggest we stop pretending that within the so named LGBT group it is all for one and one for all. It most definitely is not. Socio-economics studies show that. Political and social history shows that.

    I do understand that difference and diversity should be taught. But lets not pretend that they are special groups to start off with. Those who achieved did so not because they were black, Asian, Oriental or British etc. Nor because they were homosexual, lesbian, bi-sexual or transgendered.

    Lets teach core subjects so that yes our children can read and write, able to comprehend and put into practice basic mathematical theorems. As with other subjects, to master the basics, before tackling the intricacies of the dynamics of society such as sexual orientation, religious and secular ideology, sociology and social sciences.

    Finally, as an example of the LGBT community not being a community, I take John Linford’s comment to try, “being a gay libertarian working in the arts…”, as a good example. It is not all for one and one for all. You find more prejudices in a lesbian outlet if you are a sexually realigned male to female than you would in a heterosexual outlet. Been there observed it. The same by the way for bi-bisexuals. They are classed as part of the LGBT community, what on earth do they have as a common goal, except for not being discriminated against.

  6. Peter MacFarlane

    “bogeyman” is a teacher??

    With all those grammatical and spelling mistakes, sentences that make no sense, mismatching pronouns, etc etc?

    The comment is just about understandable, but blimey; if this is what our teachers are like, the curriculum (that’s the singular, bogeyman, btw) is the least of our worries.