I wouldn't need to. Home schooling can be done anywhere.So you'd set up your own school?
I wouldn't need to. Home schooling can be done anywhere.So you'd set up your own school?
TV, media, social, media etc.What outside influences?
Not to mention books and artTV, media, social, media etc.
Of course, home schooling will insulate children from the malign influence of other kids...but it also deprives them of the moderating influence of other kids. Can we be so sure that every home schooler is possessed of the highest motives and most laudable outlooks?I wouldn't need to. Home schooling can be done anywhere.
I wouldn't deprive them of creativity.Not to mention books and art
The big assumption you’re making here is that you’re somehow less likely to reproduce the culture that underlies all… <gestures > this… than the school is. But to achieve that, you’ll have need to have been through a really deep reflective journey. You’ve been thoroughly socialised into a culture that contains men are more important as an embedded part of its structures of social dominance. You’ll reproduce those systems of dominance every day in your talk, in your acts, in your rituals and practices, in the way you tell your stories, in the information you pay attention to, in the information you choose to share, you name it. If you think you don’t then all that proves is that you haven’t performed any self-reflection at all.True, but I think that's a little extreme, not to let them have friends. If I had children, I would home school them, and get in touch with other parents who were doing the same. Then the children could mix with each other, without all the outside influences that are so damaging. Of course, that's assuming the other parents are trying to do the same for their kids!
Well, that's what I said in my previous post. I'd want to make sure that other home schooler's are on the same wavelength. I disagree that home schooled kids are deprived in any way, as long as they have a large circle of friends.Of course, home schooling will insulate children from the malign influence of other kids...but it also deprives them of the moderating influence of other kids. Can we be so sure that every home schooler is possessed of the highest motives and most laudable outlooks?
But their friends would all be from a similar background, with parents who have similar opinions and beliefs. I think it's important for children to learn how to deal with people from very different backgrounds and experiences, while having the confidence to stand up for their own values.Well, that's what I said in my previous post. I'd want to make sure that other home schooler's are on the same wavelength. I disagree that home schooled kids are deprived in any way, as long as they have a large circle of friends.
I would be very mindful of what was taught and how it was presented. Obviously, some of the toxicity would leak through, but at least I'd be trying to make a difference.You’ve been thoroughly socialised into a culture that contains men are more important as an embedded part of its structures of social dominance. You’ll reproduce those systems of dominance every day in your talk, in your acts, in your rituals and practices, in the way you tell your stories, in the information you pay attention to, in the information you choose to share, you name it.
Whoosh.
Even many of those who conform are bullied
Not necessarily. Yes, there would be a similar outlook among the parents, but their backgrounds and experiences are going to be different.But their friends would all be from a similar background, with parents who have similar opinions and beliefs. I think it's important for children to learn how to deal with people from very different backgrounds and experiences, while having the confidence to stand up for their own values.
All you're doing with that statement is showing that you are not mindful of the cultural structures that reproduce the current state of affairs. You're not reassuring me that you'd somehow produce a child that is free from patriarchal assumptions, you're doing the very opposite.I would be very mindful of what was taught and how it was presented. Obviously, some of the toxicity would leak through, but at least I'd be trying to make a difference.
OK, so how would you bring a child up to be free as possible from patriarchal assumptions?All you're doing with that statement is showing that you are not mindful of the cultural structures that reproduce the current state of affairs. You're not reassuring me that you'd somehow produce a child that is free from patriarchal assumptions, you're doing the very opposite.
Capitalism is certainly inherently solipsistic, since it replaces the joint intentionality, and hence communality, that would otherwise be necessary in order to prioritise resources with rules for organising the exchange of abstract commodities. Consequently, I don't need to understand your project and how that might be of benefit to you, me and society, I only need to know that I am willing to pay more for the same thing than you are. Symbolic violence is immanent in this solipsism.It's a feature of capitalism, as with other violence.
Is violence less in more egalitarian societies?
I think I've already spoken at length about that subject. You seem to want a bullet-point list, though. Some kind of checklist of worthiness that you can conform to. But culture doesn't work like that. The self is constructed dialogically in constant consideration of Other. And that goes for your child too. The way that they understand how the world works comes from the practices that they engage in, and that starts (but definitely doesn't end) with the practices of the parent. If you want to minimise patriarchal assumptions, you have to start with how everything you do is saturated in them.OK, so how would you bring a child up to be free as possible from patriarchal assumptions?
I forgot to say something earlier: an academic study of gender relations once employed two actors and used hidden cameras to film the public's reaction to a couple arguing.
When the man was verbally abusive to the woman and she was "crying", quite a few people intervened to check that she was okay. But when the woman was abusive to the man, no one intervened on his behalf.
And even with all that...there will be young boys who will grow to become violent towards women.With difficulty. Because we live in the world we live in and it is impossible to avoid it in totality. We can encourage children to think critically, question norms, proactively counter the messages through conversations, literature, through buying a range of toys etc, but it’s naive to think we can completely avoid it IMO.
OK, so how would you bring a child up to be free as possible from patriarchal assumptions?
You seem more interested in telling me what I already know. I am more than aware of the influences that affect us all. I have insight, understanding and don't need a lecture from you.I think I've already spoken at length about that subject. You seem to want a bullet-point list, though. Some kind of checklist of worthiness that you can conform to. But culture doesn't work like that. The self is constructed dialogically in constant consideration of Other. And that goes for your child too. The way that they understand how the world works comes from the practices that they engage in, and that starts (but definitely doesn't end) with the practices of the parent. If you want to minimise patriarchal assumptions, you have to start with how everything you do is saturated in them.
Who mentioned 'moulding' children? An alternative way to bring them up isn't moulding them.Children aren't to be moulded.
You have conversations, that's the best you can do. Talk about how you see the world, be open about the contradictions in your thinking, talk about not knowing and not having the answers.
It would be great if schools did this too, but they don't because our system of education is highly hierarchical and doesn't recognise the capacity for children to think and feel and problem solve.
The results of experiments are what they are but how you interpret those results can be highly contested. I wouldn't locate this as individualised beliefs or dispositions so much as a combination of meaning-making within social contexts and the norming of certain responses that make it taboo to intervene in some situations rather than others. I'll leave it there, because it's not really the thread for this, but there is a great textual analysis of eyewitnesses to the James Bulger murder that demonstrates the point.Quite old now but there's a daily mail article about one experiment (I'm not linking to the mail but there's an archived version here and the video itself is here )
Then there's a BBC article about a similar experiment. Same result each time, strangers are more likely to intervene if it's a man abusing a woman but more likely to victim-blame (or even enjoy the spectacle) if it's a woman abusing a man.
Anyway it is heartening to see people will at least intervene if they see a woman being attacked.
I recall an experience in maybe 2008 or so when I was in Morrisons at Shepherds Bush and there was a large bloke screaming at and smacking a (his own, I guessed) small child. Lots of people around but nobody intervened except ultimately, me. Obviously he yelled at me it was none of my business but he did at least stop (and drag the child away angrily). Not a lot else I could do, but it's not the only time I've seen a child being abused in public and nobody stepping in.
So yeah, kids too. People in my experience often won't intervene in public abuse by a parent of their child. Which is pretty shameful. I expect alongside the epidemic of abuse of women, there's a vast hidden one taking place of abuse of children, who even more than adult partners are treated as property to do with as we wish.
I'm not naive enough to think that children can be brought up in a bubble and avoid all negative influences.With difficulty. Because we live in the world we live in and it is impossible to avoid it in totality. We can encourage children to think critically, question norms, proactively counter the messages through conversations, literature, through buying a range of toys etc, but it’s naive to think we can completely avoid it IMO.
You're naive enough to think that the world divides into negative and positive influences.I'm not naive enough to think that children can be brought up in a bubble and avoid all negative influences.
Here we go again. My opinion, according to you is 'nuts' and 'mysoynistic'. It appears that some people can't have a conversation without resorting to insults. My opinion is just that, my opinion. I'm not asking anybody to agree with it, I frankly don't care if you do.The idea that women should learn self defence to protect themselves from violence is frankly nuts. It says that women should be responsible for their own safety...this in light of the appalling violence that women experience, often from their own husbands/boyfriends/ families is grossly deluded and in itself quite misogynistic.
Who mentioned 'moulding' children? An alternative way to bring them up isn't moulding them.
i agree that schools are far too regimental in the way they teach, and limited in what they teach.