lmiddleton

Perpetuating the idea that anger is a normal response to not receiving consent from a potential partner is dangerous. 'Normal' is often confused with 'justified' when the two should be distinctly separated. Whilst anger might be a common reaction, that does not make it justified.
I believe it is mutually exclusive that a person could respect their potential partner and feel anger that they should not want to have sex for any reason. The implication is often that there is something 'owed', therefore viewing something as transactional that should be inherently relational.
Disappointment might be justified but it should never manifest as anger. If there is not the basic level of respect for each other that allows for genuine consent, then the relationship is not a healthy one.

Ultimately, I am for the abolition of private education. However, I will attempt to argue both sides in order to provide more convincing evidence for my conclusion.
Private schools gives children an unfair advantage from the outset. This advantage is through no contribution that they have made, merely the income of the family that they were born into. This advantage doesn't merely stop at college, the pursuit of higher education is also easier for those who had the privilege of private education. At Oxford, 40% of students are privately educated. This figure is disproportionately high when you consider that on 7% of the general population are privately educated. It then follows that is these children are predisposed to get higher income jobs and ultimately be able to afford to send their children to private school. As you can see, the private school advantage is often cyclical and similarly the disadvantages faced by the less privileged can last generations.
This is not to say that this effect is definite as scholarships and bursaries aim to rectify this issue of social mobility. There are more students with some type of financial aid today than there ever has been before. It is sometimes said that if you work hard enough, you can do whatever you put your mind to. Although this is true to an extent, it is narrow minded and doesn't account for all sorts of social barriers. Telling a student from a low income background that they can get the same level of education as one from a wealthier household if they work twice as hard (and secure a scholarship) is not only clearly unjust, but it is superficial in it's considerations. Other barriers excluding talent or grades could be that that student has to get a to support their family or perhaps they don't have access to the same facilities to study.
In fact, one of the biggest influences when prediction future income of a child, is the income of their parents. This is simply because of the environment you're surrounded by (Eg. households with lots of books have better prospects for their children). In this sense you could question whether disparities in higher education are directly caused by private schooling and not just the income of children's parents. After all, the most important years for academic development are from the ages 3-7, and you cannot send your child to private school before they are 8. In fact, when you control other factors there is only a 0.6% difference in GCSE grades due to private education. This being said, social mobility is precisely the issue.
There are benefits to private schools. Notably, they create institutions of excellence where some of the brightest students are concentrated in an environment that stimulates innovation. Students that are lucky enough to attend have access to more and better quality facilities, perhaps better teachers and unfair networking opportunities. As a wealthy parent, it is rational to want these advantages for your child. Some may argue that as it is their money, it should be up to them to have this option available. However, you cannot confuse this agreement for an argument for freedom of choice. This is freedom of spending as for most of the population, the choice simply isn't there.
Practically, there are issues with abolishing private schools. Primarily, the nationalization of schools would be extremely expensive. The claim that the long term profits make it worth the commitment is not backed by evidence. Finland is used as an example where schooling was nationalized and the immediate befits showed that it was successful in improving social mobility. What we saw with Finland is that after a while wealthy parents monopolized the better schools because the could afford to move into catchment zones. Although this is a real issue, surely it is better than the alternative system that we currently have? Regulations could be put in place.
The environment that a private school creates is damaging the child's social awareness. Generally people assent that private school creates a 'bubble' where students are sheltered from realities such inequality, violence ect. It would be beneficial to all if children of all social statuses were assimilated. Having said this, there are excepts to this. For example, a student with a severe disability may only be adequately catered for in a private institution. Another example could be vocational students that rely on private schools to get the best training. It would be nirvana is the state could provide these facilities but realistically they require the extra funding that they receive from benefactors. Whereas the nationalization of schooling would redistribute advantages that are currently concentrated, there are some cases where the student would need more than their equal share of resources in order ton have the same opportunities.
With exception to the above examples, the abolition of private schools is only just. People who oppose this view are mostly privately educated and are scared of a world without their privilege. This proves that it is not a meritocratic system as they know that their talents or hard work aren't the only factors that got them to their position of higher status.

Yes! Sorry I really need to get better at referencing. This is the website I used for data against abolishing private schools: https://www.oxfordstudent.com/2019/10/15/private-schools-shouldnt-be-abolished/
Also having reread what I wrote, I want to apologize for all the grammar mistakes!

Overpopulation is not the issue we are concerned about here. Yes, the global population is predicted to rise further, however, it is misleading to think that the population growth trend that we have seen over the past 250 years is going to continue. The population will reach a new, albeit higher, constant due to increased global GDP (procreation is not limitless). This new higher level is predicted to be sustainable. The fact that it is sustainable admittedly does not mean that it won't have a detrimental effect on the environment. However, it is possible to reach this new population constant and have the impact on the environment be lower that it is currently.
This being said, the single most significant thing that someone can do to reduce their carbon footprint is to have one less child. Therefore if you are interested in reducing your carbon footprint then you should seriously consider having less children or even none at all.
It does not follow that there should be 'limits' imposed. The social implications of introducing a law to impose this are disastrous. In China, the effects of the one child policy were widespread and detrimental to society (for example, the elderly population in China massively outweighs the youth, leaving inadequate care for the elderly).

Women especially are often said to have an innate maternal instinct that guides us to care for our newborns. However, the idea of the maternal instinct is a myth. Used as a tool by the patriarchy to control women by keeping them in the domestic sphere and guilt-trip them those who perhaps have less than the ideal level of attachment to their newborn.
There is however a distinction between maternal instinct and maternal drive. Maternal drive is a biological component of our DNA, designed to keep the human race growing. Despite this not every women experiences 'broodiness' and the desire to have children. This is as the hormonal changes that drive it can be exhibited in different ways, such as looking after schoolchildren as a teacher. Therefore the maternal instinct and drive are perhaps better described as a 'caring instinct'. This isn't limited to women.