Teacher get's death threats and racist hate mail for banning God Bless America.

[spankythehippo]

Wow. The longest thread title I've ever written. It says "teacher" because there are character restrictions.


Aaaaanyways...

www.wpix.com/news/wpix-god-bless-usa-061212,0,7467477.story


This is just absurd. I don't understand the hate. The principal decided not to play God Bless America. What's wrong with that? And if someone has a problem, no need to insult the person. Don't hate the criminal, hate the crime. But this isn't even a crime.


Thoughts?

[Major Robert Dump]

So a few letters were written. She probably wrote them herself so she could look like more of a vicitm.

FYI, it wasnt God Bless America, is was God Bless the USA. A pretty popualr song. She said they couldn't sing it. In America. In a school full of immigrants who are happy to be in America. Yet she allows a teen love song to remain.

Maybe had she contemplated her actions a little more before making her stupid decision, there would not be such an outcry.

The reason people are mad is because its stupid. It's dumb. WTF is up with all these people who get offended by patriotic songs and symbols of the country they immigrated to and the PC Police trying to keep feelings from getting hurt? I seem to recall a kid getting in trouble at a predominantly Latino school in the USA for wearing flag shirt on Cinco De Mayo. I seem to recall some schools during the failed "dont-go-to-work-on-immigration-protest-day" flying the mexican flag over the US flag.

Dumb crap like this just polarizes people further

[Kadagar_AV]

This topic is very hot in Sweden, where principals are banning anything from psalms to the national anthem because our dear MENA citizens might get upset.

[Kadagar_AV]

So a few letters were written. She probably wrote them herself so she could look like more of a vicitm.

FYI, it wasnt God Bless America, is was God Bless the USA. A pretty popualr song. She said they couldn't sing it. In America. In a school full of immigrants who are happy to be in America. Yet she allows a teen love song to remain.

Maybe had she contemplated her actions a little more before making her stupid decision, there would not be such an outcry.

The reason people are mad is because its stupid. It's dumb. WTF is up with all these people who get offended by patriotic songs and symbols of the country they immigrated to and the PC Police trying to keep feelings from getting hurt? I seem to recall a kid getting in trouble at a predominantly Latino school in the USA for wearing flag shirt on Cinco De Mayo. I seem to recall some schools during the failed "dont-go-to-work-on-immigration-protest-day" flying the mexican flag over the US flag.

Dumb crap like this just polarizes people further

Word.

[HoreTore]

There is no singing of patriotic songs or psalms in my classroom. No way.



Justin Bieber is fine though.

I don't see it as my job to "promote values and culture". You lazy-ass parents can do that yourself.

[Kadagar_AV]

There is no singing of patriotic songs or psalms in my classroom. No way.



Justin Bieber is fine though.

I don't see it as my job to "promote values and culture". You lazy-ass parents can do that yourself.

I... I... I don't know what to say.

That post is so full of fail I don't even know where to begin.

EDIT: No really, I am speechless. I for the first time in my life encountered a post where I think the gap between what I believe in in what the person believes in, is so wide that all form of communication would be about as effective as a whisper between mountain tops.

[HoreTore]

I... I... I don't know what to say.

That post is so full of fail I don't even know where to begin.

The only values I care about are those who contribute to a better learning enviroment, like "we let others speak without interupting", "when someone else is doing a presentation, we behave respectfully as an audience", etc.

If you want your kid raised with specific set of morals, I suggest you do it yourself. My job is to introduce your kid to all the other sets of morals in existance, not strenghten a specific set.

[Kadagar_AV]

The only values I care about are those who contribute to a better learning enviroment, like "we let others speak without interupting", "when someone else is doing a presentation, we behave respectfully as an audience", etc.

If you want your kid raised with specific set of morals, I suggest you do it yourself. My job is to introduce your kid to all the other sets of morals in existance, not strenghten a specific set.

How do you introduce, say, South African blacks morals to stick their ... inside a baby to cure AIDS?

I thought your job was to strengthen the Norwegian set of morals in the kids?

[spankythehippo]

The only values I care about are those who contribute to a better learning enviroment, like "we let others speak without interupting", "when someone else is doing a presentation, we behave respectfully as an audience", etc.

If you want your kid raised with specific set of morals, I suggest you do it yourself. My job is to introduce your kid to all the other sets of morals in existance, not strenghten a specific set.
This, I agree with. It's the parent's job to choose the right set of morals for their children to follow. It is inevitable that people will see other people with different morals. So, children should be taught about acceptance. And as long as your morals don't conflict with anyone else's, everything should be somewhat alright.

[Montmorency]

Justin Bieber is fine though.

Justin Bieber contributes to a learning environment?


And as long as your morals don't conflict with anyone else's, everything should be somewhat alright.

Eternal war, then.

[a completely inoffensive name]

My job is to introduce your kid to all the other sets of morals in existance, not strenghten a specific set.

I thought your job was to teach them algebra.

[spankythehippo]

Eternal war, then.

War? With me? Count me out.

[HoreTore]

I thought your job was to strengthen the Norwegian set of morals in the kids?

It is not.


Justin Bieber contributes to a learning environment?

Most definitely! Keyword: motivation.


I thought your job was to teach them algebra.

Actually, I only have social science classes right now.

[Kadagar_AV]

It is not.



Most definitely! Keyword: motivation.



Actually, I only have social science classes right now.

For some reason that scares me.

[rajpoot]

There is no singing of patriotic songs or psalms in my classroom. No way.

What if, say, 20 out of 25 kids want to sing a patriotic song in your classroom. (Or say their parents want them to sing it...?)

[Fragony]

What if, say, 20 out of 25 kids want to sing a patriotic song in your classroom. (Or say their parents want them to sing it...?)

Get out, go home, find a different school. I wouldn't do it anything different. Patrionism is not something to be teached in schools, politics should stay out completely.

[rajpoot]

Get out, go home, find a different school. I wouldn't do it anything different. Patrionism is not something to be teached in schools, politics should stay out completely.

But what if a kid wants to sing a song about a country he loves?
Since when is patriotism synonymous with politics? Is it so hard to be simply proud of ones country, all politics put aside?

[Kadagar_AV]

But what if a kid wants to sing a song about a country he loves?
Since when is patriotism synonymous with politics? Is it so hard to be simply proud of ones country, all politics put aside?

I'm a bit torn on this.

A) I don't want schools to be propaganda machines.
B) I don't want schools to bend forwards whenever it comes to immigration.

The truth is somewhere in between.

[Fragony]

But what if a kid wants to sing a song about a country he loves?
Since when is patriotism synonymous with politics? Is it so hard to be simply proud of ones country, all politics put aside?

Love something else. I am a nationalist but that is my own choice. It should't be encouraged at schools, schools should just do their job and teach the basics. Plenty of time to form an opinion of their own

[Kadagar_AV]

Love something else. I am a nationalist but that is my own choice. It should't be encouraged at schools, schools should just do their job and teach the basics. Plenty of time to form an opinion of their own

That argument only holds true if the school only teach the kids to read, write and calculate.

But now we have things like history and social science. Those are topics impossible to keep neutral, and thus I prefer if the state is the one swaying the neutrality, not the individual teachers.

[spankythehippo]

But what if a kid wants to sing a song about a country he loves?
Since when is patriotism synonymous with politics? Is it so hard to be simply proud of ones country, all politics put aside?

National pride is meaningless. Pride is something you feel when you accomplish something. You don't choose what country you're born in. Nationality is not an achievement. So, why should one feel proud about a country? And if a country does something good, why do random people, who had nothing to do with it, feel proud?

[Ibn-Khaldun]

Aren't there any music classes or what? Let them sing there. Why do you have to bring something like that(patriotic songs etc) into a class that should teach kids something different?

[rajpoot]

See I don't completely agree with this. Young children will get enough dirt on their own country (no matter what country it is) when they read the newspaper or watch the television. No kid should grow up feeling that his country isn't good enough.
I'm not saying that children should be taught in such a manner that they grow up to be hardcore nationalists, but some degree of pride in their own country is important. For if they are not proud of their own country and it's people, how do you expect them to work for its betterment?
The way I see it, one cannot really control all the things that influence a kid. But one can ensure that the few places that can be controlled (like schools) have a positive influence.


Edit:

National pride is meaningless. Pride is something you feel when you accomplish something. You don't choose what country you're born in. Nationality is not an achievement. So, why should one feel proud about a country? And if a country does something good, why do random people, who had nothing to do with it, feel proud?

Because the person born in that country is a part of it, and eventually he can either work so that it becomes a better place or he can be a jerk....
Do you feel proud about your favourite sports team? Do feel happy when they win?


Furthermore I think it must be clarified that the children in question are kindergarten kids and the song wasn't being taught to them. They were planning to sing it when they passed out of kindergarten.

[Fragony]

That argument only holds true if the school only teach the kids to read, write and calculate.

But now we have things like history and social science. Those are topics impossible to keep neutral, and thus I prefer if the state is the one swaying the neutrality, not the individual teachers.

I don't know what social science is up there in vikingland but I doubt it makes me very happy. Scrapping it in an instant would be the first thing I would do anyhow, Scandinavians are too crazy in their leftism for their own good, they get peeled like an onion by forces that mean them harm

[rajpoot]

I don't know what social science is up there in vikingland but I doubt it makes me very happy.

Over here social science comprised of history, geography and civics studies.
Just for the record I used to enjoy it a lot. The history bit. Got bored to death by civic studies.

[Fragony]

Over here social science comprised of history, geography and civics studies.
Just for the record I used to enjoy it a lot. The history bit. Got bored to death by civic studies.

But you live in India, scandi countries have this stubborn wllingness to put the boundaries of what is reasonable for their countries to the test, a great part of it is moulding young minds into being what they like to call 'world citizins'. And they have no trouble whatsoever to start their campaign of submission at a very young age, they are truly idiots there.

[rajpoot]

Shouldn't you be arguing for patriotic songs then? :tongue:

[Fragony]

Shouldn't you be arguing for patriotic songs then? :tongue:

Nope, not at all really, I am radically moderate

[rajpoot]

radically moderate

Noun: oxymoron
1. Conjoining contradictory terms (as in 'deafening silence')

:clown:

[Fragony]

Who are you calling a moron I don't even like oxy all that much

[HoreTore]

What if, say, 20 out of 25 kids want to sing a patriotic song in your classroom. (Or say their parents want them to sing it...?)

Who cares? It has no relevance to the subject of the class, and as such has no place there. If 20 out of 25 wants to play on their cell phones instead of following the class, I won't let them to that either.

As for politics staying out of the classrooms, that is of course nonsense. Knowledge of the different political views is of course a vital part of education.

If you as a parent feel that pride in your country is a valuable lesson for your kid, rajpoot, then I suggest you as a parent teach them that. That's your job, not mine. My job is to make them aware that other people might see things differently.

[Fragony]

Who cares? It has no relevance to the subject of the class, and as such has no place there. If 20 out of 25 wants to play on their cell phones instead of following the class, I won't let them to that either.

As for politics staying out of the classrooms, that is of course nonsense. Knowledge of the different political views is of course a vital part of education.

No, as teachers lack the self-restraint to impose their own. And you wouldn't believe what you will find in some of our schoolbooks it is pure propaganda. They feel they have the right to indoctrinate kids with leftist nonsense because they are on the good side of the argument in their opinion, so just leave it out completely. Much better.

[rajpoot]

If you as a parent feel that pride in your country is a valuable lesson for your kid, rajpoot, then I suggest you as a parent teach them that. That's your job, not mine. My job is to make them aware that other people might see things differently.

Now that's a matter of opinion isn't it.....I mean as a teacher you feel that you should be neutral in these things. I'm pretty sure there are other teachers out there who feel it is their duty to instill national pride in their pupils.....

I guess this depends on where a person lives.....over here for instance, still many people are illiterate. National pride is probably one of the last things they'll teach their kids. So I feel it is vital that schools step in. Or at least don't start banning patriotic songs.

[HoreTore]

Now that's a matter of opinion isn't it.....I mean as a teacher you feel that you should be neutral in these things. I'm pretty sure there are other teachers out there who feel it is their duty to instill national pride in their pupils.....

In that case, they haven't read their job description.

My job is not to promote any values, and so I don't promote any values. The human rights charter clearly shows that this is the responsibility of the parents, not the state.

[Fragony]

In that case, they haven't read their job description.

My job is not to promote any values, and so I don't promote any values. The human rights charter clearly shows that this is the responsibility of the parents, not the state.

Human rights charter is also nothing more then an opinion of what human-rights are. Tell me, what are you teaching about the things that make the right really really sad. On immigration, europe, and islam specifically. You solved the entire issue of honour-killings within muslim families by finding out that it also happens in rural India after all, are you sure you are objective.

[HoreTore]

Human rights charter is also nothing more then an opinion of what human-rights are. Tell me, what are you teaching about the things that make the right really really sad. On immigration, europe, and islam specifically. You solved the entire issue of honour-killings within muslim families by finding out that it also happens in rural India after all, are you sure you are objective.

I don't conclude anything. The standard procedure is "student makes a statement - I give a counter statement".

Ie.
Students say immigration enriches our culture. I respond by asking "what about those who do not want our culture to change", or something like that.

Coming up with counters to a leftist argument is absolutely no problem. Same with right-wing arguments. What is difficult is coming up with a proper response to a moderate, centrist statement.

As for grading, I grade based on how their arguments are built, not what they conclude with(I honestly don't care about the conclusion, other than it having a logical connection to the arguments used).

[Fragony]

Students say immigration enriches our culture. I respond by asking "what about those who do not want our culture to change", or something like that.


Who put it in their head that immigration is an enrichment for starters, and you are already presenting a change to culture as a given that some oppose to. I am sure you are trying but I think it's better if you don't try anything at all here. Just teach maths you are good at that.

[Major Robert Dump]

Wow I never realized God Bless the USA was such a cultural-reinforcing song that prmoted values, etc. I just thought it was a catchy, patriotic tune that a lot of kids, including me, sang at their grade school graduations and 4th of july ceremonies etc. As I recall, my class even voted on the songs top sing

We picked God Bless the USA
And also We Are The World.
And Also Greatest Love of All.

I wish our principle had banned the last two

[Fragony]

Wow I never realized God Bless the USA was such a cultural-reinforcing song that prmoted values, etc. I just thought it was a catchy, patriotic tune that a lot of kids, including me, sang at their grade school graduations and 4th of july ceremonies etc. As I recall, my class even voted on the songs top sing

We picked God Bless the USA
And also We Are The World.
And Also Greatest Love of All.

I wish our principle had banned the last two

Keep in mind that most of us here are Europeans, what is perfectly innocent for you is rather creepy for us. We are not the same continent we have a different history.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That argument only holds true if the school only teach the kids to read, write and calculate.

But now we have things like history and social science. Those are topics impossible to keep neutral, and thus I prefer if the state is the one swaying the neutrality, not the individual teachers.

This, I think, is key.

Even reading is a cultural activity, hell the habit of reading is cultural, not all cultures do it.

In the case of children who are first and second generation immigrants it most definately is the responsibility of the school to educate the children about the host country.

The idea that schools have no "moral" dimension is also troubling, because without that element you have no hope of enforcing dicipline (as seen in British schools currently).

To condense that - moral and cultural relevatism are moral and cultural viewpoints, adhering to them is no better than adhering to Christian moralism or "traditional" culture.

[Strike For The South]

God Bless America, in theory, could stimulate a reaction in people. I doubt at a school full of immigrants who love cheeseburgers and pizza....

However, Justin Beiber is an affront to all. No talent ass clown

[HoreTore]

Who put it in their head that immigration is an enrichment for starters, and you are already presenting a change to culture as a given that some oppose to. I am sure you are trying but I think it's better if you don't try anything at all here. Just teach maths you are good at that.

Who put it in their head? You are unable to realize that a substantial ammount of people can come to that conclusion on their own, without anyone oushing the idea?

I don't really take criticism in this field seriously from people with views like yours, frags.

[rajpoot]

All right, say moderation and neutrality are the correct way to go for schools. The correct way to teach kids.
The bottom line is, that somewhere else in the world there are people who aren't so moderate. And they do everything they can to make their kids unreasonable bigots. I do not support such people. They need to be stopped.
But would you rather see your kids be disillusioned about their country at a tender age or would you rather want them to grow up being happy about where they were born, and then once they are old enough, decide what is wrong and what is right?
In my opinion, children going to kindergarten do not need to learn about every single mistake their country has made. They need to feel good about their home, their city and their country.
If you stop them from singing a patriotic song, I don't think many of them will understand that it was done so as not to offend immigrants. Chances are they will feel resentful towards those immigrant kids because they were the reason they could not sing a nice song......
Moderation is the key no doubt, but it should be moderate moderation.
And in the end, no matter how moderate one wants to be, no matter what the issue, eventually, one needs to get off the fence.

HoreTore
When you tell someone about an event from one perspective and leave the job of explaining the other side for someone else, it's not being neutral.

[HoreTore]

Uhm, what? I aim to present as many viewpoints("sides") as possible on each subject.

[rajpoot]

If you as a parent feel that pride in your country is a valuable lesson for your kid, rajpoot, then I suggest you as a parent teach them that. That's your job, not mine. My job is to make them aware that other people might see things differently.

If you tell them about how other people who do not like their country see it, then you must tell them about how people who do like it see it.

[HoreTore]

If you tell them about how other people who do not like their country see it, then you must tell them about how people who do like it see it.

Yes? That's what I do(though the example is a little off).

[Lemur]

I think people overestimate the value of propaganda in school. I recited the Pledge of Allegiance every day, and it did not turn me into a screaming, mindless, my-country-can-do-no-wrong kinda citizen.

And agreement with many posters that parenting is far more impactful and important than what you sing in school.

All that said, sure sounds like the teacher is not the sharpest pencil in the box.

[Skullheadhq]

This topic is very hot in Sweden, where principals are banning anything from psalms to the national anthem because our dear MENA citizens might get upset.

Sweden is so multiculti/cultural marxist it isn't even funny anymore. I know, biased source, but too lazy too look further, but check out what their Green Party (http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3582) is doing over there.

[Strike For The South]

The Swedish Green Party state explicitly that the concepts male and female are "socially constructed" and forced upon all human beings.

Yea that whole genitilia thing is just like your opinion man.

Second wave feminism is terrible. Anyone born between 1945-65 should be taken out back and shot. You people screwed up so bad, I didn't even realize it was possible to screw up this bad.

[Fragony]

Sweden is so multiculti/cultural marxist it isn't even funny anymore. I know, biased source, but too lazy too look further, but check out what their Green Party (http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3582) is doing over there.

Starting to get the idea, the left is insane

[Kadagar_AV]

Sweden is so multiculti/cultural marxist it isn't even funny anymore. I know, biased source, but too lazy too look further, but check out what their Green Party (http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/3582) is doing over there.

You don't need to look further, that source got it about right.

I wouldn't be surprised if we soon have banned Swedish for Arabic, and have laws dictating men must smack their own balls every morning and think of the historical errors towards women.

I exaggerate a little, but not as much as most people would think.

[HoreTore]

I think people overestimate the value of propaganda in school. I recited the Pledge of Allegiance every day, and it did not turn me into a screaming, mindless, my-country-can-do-no-wrong kinda citizen.

And agreement with many posters that parenting is far more impactful and important than what you sing in school.

All that said, sure sounds like the teacher is not the sharpest pencil in the box.

My fear is that I will influence one of my students to think as I do. That's the last thing I want. I get stressed whenever some other teacher puts a value which I hold myself in a positive light, and NEVER do it myself.

Kids should learn about different values at school. Which ones they find meaningful should be up to themselves(and their parents), and the school should never promote anything.

With one MAJOR exception:
I am the King, despot and ruthless dictator of my classroom. In order for me to do my job, I need to create the classroom enviroment needed for students to learn what I intend them to. As such, they will have to follow certain values etc when in the classroom. For example, you can have the opinion that people who in your opinion says dumb stuff should be silent, and that its perfectly acceptable for you to interrupt when someone says something you disagree with. Go nuts with it. But when you're in my class, and we have a discussion in class, there will be no interrupting others.

[HoreTore]

Yea that whole genitilia thing is just like your opinion man.

You should know better than to rely on fascist sources, SFTS.

What the greens mean, is that gender roles are largely social constructs. They also hold the opinion that enviromental and structural forces play a bigger part in determining who you are than "free will".

[Fragony]

You don't need to look further, that source got it about right.

I wouldn't be surprised if we soon have banned Swedish for Arabic, and have laws dictating men must smack their own balls every morning and think of the historical errors towards women.

I exaggerate a little, but not as much as most people would think.

Getting a little bit creepy huh, but that is just a bit of a populist thing to say. Sweden..

[Skullheadhq]

that gender roles are largely social constructs.

Some people actually believe this :shame:

[Kralizec]

I assume that by "gender roles" they mean A) daddy brings home the bacon B) mommy does the laundry and takes care of the kids. And if that's what they mean (that they're social constructs), then I agree :shrug:

[HoreTore]

Stieg Larsson got his title right; Men who hate women. Sums up the far-right perfectly.

A strong, independent woman who makes her own decisions on how to live her life is a nightmare for fascists.

[Hax]

Some people actually believe this

Hey guess what, cool teenager rebel dude, going against your parents, the establishment and not trusting anyone over thirty. I know you think you're being totally on edge right now which is really cool, but seriously, it's like some of these truths we cling onto dearly are actually true. We ain't doing it to upset you, because I can understand your parents totally suck and have no idea what it's like to be your age, but we ain't gonna let go of equal rights simply because you think it's part of the establishment. Sucks, right?

[Fragony]

Stieg Larsson got his title right; Men who hate women. Sums up the far-right perfectly.

A strong, independent woman who makes her own decisions on how to live her life is a nightmare for fascists.

You know his history?

Edit heck what good is that, Stieg Larsson is the actual founder of the viking's nazi party, didn't you know that

[HoreTore]

You know his history?

About the only thing I know about Stieg Larsson is that he made a cracking title for one of his books.

[Fragony]

About the only thing I know about Stieg Larsson is that he made a cracking title for one of his books.

He also has a dark dark past, I am not kidding he was the founder of the Norwegian neo nazi's

[HoreTore]

He also has a dark dark past, I am not kidding he was the founder of the Norwegian neo nazi's

The Norwegian Neo-Nazis are a continuation from Nasjonal Samling.

Anyway, who Stieg Larsson is isn't very relevant to his ability to make catchy titles.

[Skullheadhq]

Hey guess what, cool teenager rebel dude, going against your parents, the establishment and not trusting anyone over thirty. I know you think you're being totally on edge right now which is really cool, but seriously, it's like some of these truths we cling onto dearly are actually true. We ain't doing it to upset you, because I can understand your parents totally suck and have no idea what it's like to be your age, but we ain't gonna let go of equal rights simply because you think it's part of the establishment. Sucks, right?

Oh, you! :rolleyes:

I'm just saying it's not really all a social construct if 99% of the civilisations, even the isolated ones in the jungle, do gender roles the same way. But I guess I'm just being edgy.

[Fragony]

Neo nazi's, not nazi's. He's it. Well was.

[HoreTore]

Oh, you! :rolleyes:
I'm just saying it's not really all a social construct if thas the way it went in 99% of civilisations.

Wre you very selective in your history knowledge, or are you simply aware of all the ways gender roles have changed back and forth over the years?

And the statement doesn't imply that it's all a social construct either, that would be a statement as silly as claiming it to be all a biological construct, and few academics would agree with it. It's a mix, both factors count.

[Skullheadhq]

Wre you very selective in your history knowledge, or are you simply aware of all the ways gender roles have changed back and forth over the years?

I didn't know there were great civilisations were women were in the army, conquering empires while the men stayed home for the children. I retract if there were civilisations like that though.

Anyway, I do not want to take away equal rights, I am merely arguing that nature plays a role too, and that not everything, from race to gender, is a social construct.

[HoreTore]

Neo nazi's, not nazi's. He's it. Well was.

I did say "Neo-Nazi". And the norwegian neo-nazi organisations are a continuation from Nasjonal Samling and associated movements.

[Kralizec]

Oh, you! :rolleyes:

I'm just saying it's not really all a social construct if 99% of the civilisations, even the isolated ones in the jungle, do gender roles the same way. But I guess I'm just being edgy.

It doesn't matter if it's been that way for centuries. They're still social constructs, evolved to meet the needs of ages past. Gender roles don't serve any objective purpose anymore, probably haven't for the last two centuries - they only exist today because of social inertia.

Plus, for the vast majority of human history woman have been engaged in economicly productive work as well. The concept of the wife staying at home all day to do household chores instead of engaging in work that would feed the family is a rather recent development.

[HoreTore]

Nobody is arguing that nature doesn't play a part. As for women in the army, have a look at the Red Army. Not that it matters anyway, we do not define ourselves based on warfare.

The Swedish Knig stated that women can't be regents, as they are too weak by nature. Then have a look at the brits or any of the many female regents in history who has had actual power, and tell me how nature can explain that.

Womens sexual history is another interesting field, as it seems to change dramatically once every century or so.

[Greyblades]

Starting to get the idea, the left is insane

As is the right. And Center.

[Skullheadhq]

Nobody is arguing that nature doesn't play a part. As for women in the army, have a look at the Red Army. Not that it matters anyway, we do not define ourselves based on warfare.

The Swedish Knig stated that women can't be regents, as they are too weak by nature. Then have a look at the brits or any of the many female regents in history who has had actual power, and tell me how nature can explain that.

Womens sexual history is another interesting field, as it seems to change dramatically once every century or so.

This.


They're still social constructs.

Not 100%.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You should know better than to rely on fascist sources, SFTS.

What the greens mean, is that gender roles are largely social constructs. They also hold the opinion that enviromental and structural forces play a bigger part in determining who you are than "free will".

So, really, they're Post-Modernists?

It's a movement, it's not as well thought of as it was.

Such beliefs were also held by such progressives as Aristotle, who relates the story of a young woman who got so excited and energetic she became a man.


Stieg Larsson got his title right; Men who hate women. Sums up the far-right perfectly.

A strong, independent woman who makes her own decisions on how to live her life is a nightmare for fascists.

So long as she's a white European - and only abused by white Norwegian men.


About the only thing I know about Stieg Larsson is that he made a cracking title for one of his books.

So, what you don't know is that he didn't believe Muslim women should have the same rights as white women - that it was more important to preserve "culture" than extend universal rights universally.


He also has a dark dark past, I am not kidding he was the founder of the Norwegian neo nazi's

I think you'll find he was a former Communist radical, his surviving papers show he was terrified of being offed by Facist para-militaries. Also, see above about honour killings and forced marriages for Muslims.


It doesn't matter if it's been that way for centuries. They're still social constructs, evolved to meet the needs of ages past. Gender roles don't serve any objective purpose anymore, probably haven't for the last two centuries - they only exist today because of social inertia.

Plus, for the vast majority of human history woman have been engaged in economicly productive work as well. The concept of the wife staying at home all day to do household chores instead of engaging in work that would feed the family is a rather recent development.

The claim that gender roles varied is a rather recent development, actually. The division of work has generally seen the man go "out" and the woman stay "in". Managing the household has generally been the preserve of the wife, at different times in different economies this has involved different things. Currently the paradigm is about the woman replacing the servants while the man takes on the task of bringing in cash to buy goods. In previous eras where women engaged in more "economic activity" as you call it households were more self sufficient and we did not operate using a solely cash economy.

The idea that these "constructs" have "evolved" is not logically defensible, not only do we have no history (i.e. written source) which does not include a gendered division of labour, but there is no evidence that the division developed AFTER our species evolved. Gorillas, for example, operate a gendered society just like humans.

What has fluctuated is the social value placed upon the gender roles. Your denegration of a "traditional" woman's role is a great example - running a household and raising children are in every way as demanding and potentially rewarding as a salaried job, if not more so, but society does not value these as contributions.

[HoreTore]

What political ideas Stieg Larsson may have had has no relevance to my use of the title of one of his books.

He could've believed in reptilian overlords who eat babies for all I care, he still made a catchy title for his book(which as far as I knowm has nothing to do with what's discussed here).

Also, I avoid discussing what's "natural", as I see nature as completely irrelevant. Believing that what's natural is what's most efficient implies a belief in humans as perfect creations/the height of evolution, and I don't. So in essence, that something is natural to do in no way equates to what we should do in my opinion.

Getting women off their lazy behinds and into the workforce has created a substantial economic growth, and that's what I care about and thus why I support it. Whether or not it's natural is complrtely irrelevant.

[Fragony]

Suit yourself, but I don't forgive that easily just because he wrote a cool book

[HoreTore]

Suit yourself, but I don't forgive that easily just because he wrote a cool book

I haven't read it.

[Kralizec]

The claim that gender roles varied is a rather recent development, actually. The division of work has generally seen the man go "out" and the woman stay "in". Managing the household has generally been the preserve of the wife, at different times in different economies this has involved different things. Currently the paradigm is about the woman replacing the servants while the man takes on the task of bringing in cash to buy goods. In previous eras where women engaged in more "economic activity" as you call it households were more self sufficient and we did not operate using a solely cash economy.

The idea that these "constructs" have "evolved" is not logically defensible, not only do we have no history (i.e. written source) which does not include a gendered division of labour, but there is no evidence that the division developed AFTER our species evolved. Gorillas, for example, operate a gendered society just like humans.

What has fluctuated is the social value placed upon the gender roles. Your denegration of a "traditional" woman's role is a great example - running a household and raising children are in every way as demanding and potentially rewarding as a salaried job, if not more so, but society does not value these as contributions.

Oh, I'm not denying that biological differences had an effect on how gender roles developed. It's obvious they did. But even so, women engaged in what we would call productive tasks throughout history (the most obvious example would be hunter-gatherer societies, which were quite egalitarian)

Bonobos are matriarchal. What do other primates have to do with the topic?

I did not denigrate anything. I do desipise the position that even nowadays traditional gender roles are more desirable or have greater validity.

[Beskar]

For some reason, this thread reminded me of this common dutch saying:

doe maar gewoon, dan doe je al gek genoeg
"just act normal, that’s crazy enough!"

[Fragony]

You read 'van nature goed' thanks but no thanks

[a completely inoffensive name]

Saying the pledge of allegiance was always stupid and had no impact at manipulating teenagers who were dead tired from waking up at 6:30am.

[Ironside]

You don't need to look further, that source got it about right.

I wouldn't be surprised if we soon have banned Swedish for Arabic, and have laws dictating men must smack their own balls every morning and think of the historical errors towards women.

I exaggerate a little, but not as much as most people would think.

Meh, the radical left doesn't even have that much support even on the left. They do have a lot of media content. Roughly, if you made some really good work 20 years ago, you're still in, even if you find Lenin better than the founder of Swedish social democracy :dizzy2:. Aggressive left wing groups being usually treated with kiddie gloves are true without debate though.

The most extreme gender role radicalism is about letting the child developing on their own, without outside gender influence (it might be stronger radicalism, but they aren't in the media). This is of course interpretated as trying to completly wipe out any gender difference, while the end result if perfectly done (probably impossible), would show the natural differenences and the overlap. This is very rare.

[Kadagar_AV]

HoreTore, another catchy title for a book is "My Struggle". Can I wave that title around without connotations to the author?



The claim that gender roles varied is a rather recent development, actually. The division of work has generally seen the man go "out" and the woman stay "in". Managing the household has generally been the preserve of the wife, at different times in different economies this has involved different things. Currently the paradigm is about the woman replacing the servants while the man takes on the task of bringing in cash to buy goods. In previous eras where women engaged in more "economic activity" as you call it households were more self sufficient and we did not operate using a solely cash economy.

The idea that these "constructs" have "evolved" is not logically defensible, not only do we have no history (i.e. written source) which does not include a gendered division of labour, but there is no evidence that the division developed AFTER our species evolved. Gorillas, for example, operate a gendered society just like humans.

What has fluctuated is the social value placed upon the gender roles. Your denegration of a "traditional" woman's role is a great example - running a household and raising children are in every way as demanding and potentially rewarding as a salaried job, if not more so, but society does not value these as contributions.

Thanks dude. Posts like this is what keeps me coming back. I for one think the feministic (I might misspell that, but the Google auto-word finder doesnt find a match. Kudos to Google) movement should work way harder with the lions, spiders and apes. Let's help the sisters in most need first!!! Except for the spiders of course, there it is more like we men totally need to get our eyes opened to what is happening.



Meh, the radical left doesn't even have that much support even on the left. They do have a lot of media content. Roughly, if you made some really good work 20 years ago, you're still in, even if you find Lenin better than the founder of Swedish social democracy :dizzy2:. Aggressive left wing groups being usually treated with kiddie gloves are true without debate though.

The most extreme gender role radicalism is about letting the child developing on their own, without outside gender influence (it might be stronger radicalism, but they aren't in the media). This is of course interpretated as trying to completly wipe out any gender difference, while the end result if perfectly done (probably impossible), would show the natural differenences and the overlap. This is very rare.

Unfortunately the people with an IQ around 100 are the ones reading these newspapers and form their opinions based on it. Sweden's most sold newspaper is the avid defender of these very same principles. I might also mention that these very same people get to vote.

[Montmorency]

The most extreme gender role radicalism is about letting the child developing on their own, without outside gender influence (it might be stronger radicalism, but they aren't in the media). This is of course interpretated as trying to completly wipe out any gender difference, while the end result if perfectly done (probably impossible), would show the natural differenences and the overlap. This is very rare.

A very interesting proposition, but could only work in a laboratory setting. Would be very useful...

[Kadagar_AV]

A very interesting proposition, but could only work in a laboratory setting. Would be very useful...

The nazis did a lot of experiments like that. A lot of our modern knowledge actually comes from completely abmoral (sp?) science just like this.

The problem we have today is that morals dictates science. "Problem" from a scientific perspective of course. We can't even do tests on sperm as they are living beings, and it will offend people.

I myself is sooooooo torn on this. As much as I want science to develop, I am utterly afraid of what we do when we let science loose. I VERY much prefer to wait untill science improves, but then, how can science improve with the barriers we put up?

The only workable conclusion I came up with is: "babysteps".

[Skullheadhq]

The problem we have today is that morals dictates science. "Problem" from a scientific perspective of course. We can't even do tests on sperm as they are living beings, and it will offend people.

What about animal tests? They are living beings and I think they are more or less allowed? Sperm is not as intelligent as bunnies.

That being said, I don't think scientists will regulate themselves but will do anything, really anything for the "greater good".

[HoreTore]

HoreTore, another catchy title for a book is "My Struggle". Can I wave that title around without connotations to the author?

Feel free to quote Knausgård asmuch as you want to. I won't use it against you.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Oh, I'm not denying that biological differences had an effect on how gender roles developed. It's obvious they did. But even so, women engaged in what we would call productive tasks throughout history (the most obvious example would be hunter-gatherer societies, which were quite egalitarian)

How do you know Hunter-gathere societies were "egalitarian" - they left no written records and the only reports come from Western observers.

That being said - what reports we have indicate a basic division, men hunt and women gather. This would generally extend to "men go to war (because it's like hunting)" and "women stay home".

It's a tiny step from that to reaching a position where only men are involved in decisions about when to hunt or fight and then you have your basic Patriarchy.

As I said, in era where families were more self sufficient the "economics" engaged in by women were home-based, brewing, weaving... etc.

It's simple - women get pregnant, and it takes nine months for women to procreate, ergo women cannot do physically strenuous jobs or travel long distances while "procreating", men can. Gender roles are based on this simple truth, they have not "developed", i.e. fundamentally changed, in most societies all that has happened is that they have adapted to different economic models.

This happens even today - men go back to work much sooner after the baby is born (in general) whilst women stay home to take care of it, whether they can go back to work later depends on whether they can afford childcare (economics) much more than personal preference. Those who can afford childcare are no different from medieval ladies who hired wetnurses and nanies.

Which just proves that, really, we are all stinking rich in the modern West.

[Kralizec]

How do you know Hunter-gathere societies were "egalitarian" - they left no written records and the only reports come from Western observers.

That being said - what reports we have indicate a basic division, men hunt and women gather. This would generally extend to "men go to war (because it's like hunting)" and "women stay home".

It's a tiny step from that to reaching a position where only men are involved in decisions about when to hunt or fight and then you have your basic Patriarchy.

As I said, in era where families were more self sufficient the "economics" engaged in by women were home-based, brewing, weaving... etc.

It's simple - women get pregnant, and it takes nine months for women to procreate, ergo women cannot do physically strenuous jobs or travel long distances while "procreating", men can. Gender roles are based on this simple truth, they have not "developed", i.e. fundamentally changed, in most societies all that has happened is that they have adapted to different economic models.

This happens even today - men go back to work much sooner after the baby is born (in general) whilst women stay home to take care of it, whether they can go back to work later depends on whether they can afford childcare (economics) much more than personal preference. Those who can afford childcare are no different from medieval ladies who hired wetnurses and nanies.

Which just proves that, really, we are all stinking rich in the modern West.

About the hunter-gatherers, I read about it a long time ago but I forgot where. It makes sense though, the returns on hunting and gathering varies with the seasons and you can't adhere to a strict sexual division in labor for something as essential as food supply. The only exception being that the riskier hunting jobs are left to the men, since a tribe's ability to sustain its population depends more on women than men. But let's leave this to the anthropologists.

Wetnurses and nannies are full blown surrogate mothers, taking care of a small number of kids or even one. Childcare is much less than that, and cheaper by any standard. For some societies, Saudi Arabia comes to mind in particular, childcare would be financially viable for the bulk of the population and would enable a lot of women to work. But cultural taboos prevent this.

[HoreTore]

Women stay home longer than males, now?

Perhaps in patriarchal and oppressive societies like England. In more civilized countries(norway, of course), where the decision on who stays home is not decided by economics, men and women care for their children equally, and almost every child goes to kindergarden. Thus, both males and feamles get a few months off work after the baby is born, then when the vacation is over it's back to being productive.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Women stay home longer than males, now?

Perhaps in patriarchal and oppressive societies like England. In more civilized countries(norway, of course), where the decision on who stays home is not decided by economics, men and women care for their children equally, and almost every child goes to kindergarden. Thus, both males and feamles get a few months off work after the baby is born, then when the vacation is over it's back to being productive.

In your society men are being encouraged to breastfeed.

Your opinion is not valid.

[HoreTore]

In your society men are being encouraged to breastfeed.

Your opinion is not valid.

I see you too have the habit of not reading more than the headlines...

[Tellos Athenaios]

About the hunter-gatherers, I read about it a long time ago but I forgot where. It makes sense though, the returns on hunting and gathering varies with the seasons and you can't adhere to a strict sexual division in labor for something as essential as food supply. The only exception being that the riskier hunting jobs are left to the men, since a tribe's ability to sustain its population depends more on women than men. But let's leave this to the anthropologists.


Indeed you cannot. Because often hunting doesn't bring home enough to sustain you. In fact, in hunter gatherer societies the only one to "make a profit" is grandma.

[PanzerJaeger]

'God bless the USA' has to be the most inoffensive song ever written.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I see you too have the habit of not reading more than the headlines...

I read the articles - have there not been at least two men who wanted to do this?

I remember one was taking hormones to encourage lactation.

So -basically - having fathered the bairn he was trying to make himself more like a woman.

Fundamental Man Fail.


Indeed you cannot. Because often hunting doesn't bring home enough to sustain you. In fact, in hunter gatherer societies the only one to "make a profit" is grandma.

Ah - but because the hunting is harder and carries greater risk it is the higher status activity.

Hunter-Gathering basically divided up the work Man-Woman as far as we know. Women worked near the camp, men went ranging.

[HoreTore]

I read the articles - have there not been at least two men who wanted to do this?

I remember one was taking hormones to encourage lactation.

So -basically - having fathered the bairn he was trying to make himself more like a woman.

Fundamental Man Fail.

The article. (http://ipad.dagbladet.no/2011/10/26/nyheter/mannlig_laktasjon/amming/likestilling/18775764/)

It all started with a minister stating that women should be more lax about breast-feeding pressure, it should be more down to individual choice and the hysteria and fear-mongering should stop. Then a journalist made a story about a tribe in the Congo where the males breast-feed their offspring.

The article also mentions a swede who attempted to make himself able to lactate in a tv-documentary.


This was of course seized upon by the people who only read headlines, and in their mind, the minister had said that males should breat-feed their children and that several men already do. Which of course is both ridiculous and wrong.



Ah - but because the hunting is harder and carries greater risk it is the higher status activity.

Hunter-Gathering basically divided up the work Man-Woman as far as we know. Women worked near the camp, men went ranging.

....and as everyone knows, what they did in the stone age was the peak of efficiency. /sarcasm

Almost everything done in the past was either idiotic, irrelevant or inefficient. Looking to the past to determine the present is nonsense.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

....and as everyone knows, what they did in the stone age was the peak of efficiency. /sarcasm

Take a moment to think there.

OK - division of labour into specialisms is more efficient, Homo Sapiens Sapiens are successful for this reason. It is economically inefficient for both men and women to interupt their careers for their children, it is also inefficient viz the raising of the children to hand the duty off to a third party, as well as being more risky.


Almost everything done in the past was either idiotic, irrelevant or inefficient. Looking to the past to determine the present is nonsense.

No more or less than today.

[HoreTore]

Inefficient with kindergardens? No. One person looking after ten children is of course more efficient than one person looking after one child. And that's before we add in differences in value created by those persons. As for being more risky, of course it's not. The scientific research available suggest it's less risky, and actually better for the child(though it's too early to make final conclusions).

As for interrupting careers. Interrupting a career where the norm is not to interrupt will lead to a personal economic loss. Interrupting a career where the norm is to interrupt won't lead to any personal economic loss. As for total loss to society, it makes no difference who interruptstheir careers, what matters is total amount of time away from production, which is the same whether one parent or both take days off. In essence, what that argument leads to is that having children in a society is an economic loss, which is clearly a false statement.

[Moros]

Not that long ago I stumbled upon this: http://www.ted.com/talks/tony_porter_a_call_to_men.html
It made me shiver.

I guess I'm too sexist for this talk. And while it's true there's an inequality that shouldn't be there. But man people can overact and go too far.

Edit: Gah! It's actually somewhat okay, now that I rewatched. Gah! still a bit much though.

Anyway everybody is sexist anyway. Some just convince themselves and or others they aren't.

Also singing a nationalist song isn't bad per se, but shouldn't be forced either. Kids should do as they like when it comes to that. As long as they don't sing anything overly offensive. The white man marches on, would for one obviously go to far. But is it a big deal? Nah.

Personally I don't think nationalism should be taught in school. Nationalism isn't about being proud really, it is about twisting truth and idealising. It only creates justification to look down to others or worse. One can be well proud isn't the right word, but happy to be part of a country or just like the country. But real nationalism is bad. Ever tried having a historical discussion with people who had school with real nationalistic ideas inserted? Not just a pledge of allegiance. Nationalism had caused problems for historical curriculum in every country with big discussion and sometimes even more. Also working for the betterment of a country sounds a bit like the thirties really. Don't want to go there...

When it comes to letting school teach morals to your children that's like well dumb and lazy. It's your responsibility to teach your child not only how to behave but morals, though it will form its own in the end, you can influence it at least. But you can't expect a school or teachers to do so. Everyone has their own morals, father and mother might even have discussions about it, how can a teacher teach the correct set to each and every one of them. The only thing you could teach at school is the 'golden rule', don't do to others what you wouldn't like to be done to you. But that's where it ends. And yes if you'd connect this with the sexism discussion and add certain cultural backgrounds, you already might have a problem with parents.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Not that long ago I stumbled upon this: http://www.ted.com/talks/tony_porter_a_call_to_men.html
It made me shiver.

I guess I'm too sexist for this talk. And while it's true there's an inequality that shouldn't be there. But man people can overact and go too far.

Yeah - my Father is not quite that bad.

Still, I get the point and I agree.

That doesn't mean men will develop wombs along with emotional intelligence.

[Fragony]

For Moros http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven/2012/03/een_zoon_opvoeden_als_een_baas.html

[Pannonian]

Wow. The longest thread title I've ever written. It says "teacher" because there are character restrictions.


Aaaaanyways...

www.wpix.com/news/wpix-god-bless-usa-061212,0,7467477.story


This is just absurd. I don't understand the hate. The principal decided not to play God Bless America. What's wrong with that? And if someone has a problem, no need to insult the person. Don't hate the criminal, hate the crime. But this isn't even a crime.


Thoughts?

If you're having trouble with character restrictions, you could omit the unnecessary and incorrect apostrophe in "get's". That gets (sic) you an extra character.

[The Stranger]

What if, say, 20 out of 25 kids want to sing a patriotic song in your classroom. (Or say their parents want them to sing it...?)

what if 20 of them want to sing the mexican anthem. or a nazi march song?

[Moros]

Or a nazi march song?

I can recommend: Die Lore (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ7fwDo9wM8). It's catchy and gets a party going.

[Kralizec]

Ah - but because the hunting is harder and carries greater risk it is the higher status activity.

Hunter-Gathering basically divided up the work Man-Woman as far as we know. Women worked near the camp, men went ranging.

You do not seriously think that in times when hunting game was rare, the men would just sit on their arses while the women went scavenging for plant food?

I vaguely recall now that I've read about this in a book I own detailing human history from the stone age age till late antiquity. I'm not sure where it is right now, so this wiki will have to suffice:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer

Hunter-gatherer societies also tend to have relatively non-hierarchical, egalitarian social structures. This might have been more pronounced in the more mobile societies.
Full-time leaders, bureaucrats, or artisans are rarely supported by these societies.[16][17][18] In addition to social and economic equality in hunter-gatherer societies there is often, though not always, sexual parity as well.[16][19] Hunter-gatherers are often grouped together based on kinship and band (or tribe) membership.[19]
...
A vast amount of ethnographic and archaeological evidence demonstrates that the sexual division of labor in which men hunt and women gather wild fruits and vegetables is an uncommon phenomenon among hunter-gatherers worldwide. Although most of the gathering is usually done by women, a society in which men completely abstained from gathering easily available plants has yet to be found. Generally women hunt the majority of the small game while men hunt the majority of the large and dangerous game, but there are quite a few documented exceptions to this general pattern. A study done on the Aeta people of the Philippines states: "About 85% of Philippine Aeta women hunt, and they hunt the same quarry as men. Aeta women hunt in groups and with dogs, and have a 31% success rate as opposed to 17% for men. Their rates are even better when they combine forces with men: mixed hunting groups have a full 41% success rate among the Aeta."

[Kadagar_AV]

You do not seriously think that in times when hunting game was rare, the men would just sit on their arses while the women went scavenging for plant food?

I vaguely recall now that I've read about this in a book I own detailing human history from the stone age age till late antiquity. I'm not sure where it is right now, so this wiki will have to suffice:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hunter-gatherer

That must be local...

From what I read in school and after the men are the ones with bite marks and stuff...


last I read women took care of the group at large, gathered, and hunted small game...

The men did all of the above and also went out in groups hunting the big game.



So yes, men did all the jobs women did (if you don't count giving birth and feeding them the first period of their lives), but women didn't do all the jobs men did, ie, big game hunting.

So again, I think the study you show points at a local phenomenon, maybe where the big game is no longer a real danger?

[Moros]

I remember it started really with the introduction of the plow and similar tools, which women weren't strong enough to handle or much less efficient at handling. Not sure how much that theory was supported and all though. Just something I remember reading once.

[Kadagar_AV]

I remember it started really with the introduction of the plow and similar tools, which women weren't strong enough to handle or much less efficient at handling. Not sure how much that theory was supported and all though. Just something I remember reading once.

Nah.

[Moros]

Nah.

Thanks for clearing that up!

[Kadagar_AV]

Thanks for clearing that up!

Well, if your source is Not sure how much that theory was supported and all though. Just something I remember reading once. <- what more did you expect? Me to do your homework for you?

EDIT: Granted, I didn't source either. However, my reference was and is school and main thinking. Generally the one opposing what is taught in schools and main thinking is the one who have to source.

Or even easier comprehensible: If you fight against popular belief you must make a valid point or source real well :)

[Montmorency]

You mean this (http://www.economics.harvard.edu/faculty/alesina/files/Plough_draft_May_2011.pdf)?


Abstract: This paper seeks to better understand the historical origins
of current differences in norms and beliefs about the appropriate
role of women in society. We test the hypothesis that traditional
agricultural practices influenced the historical gender division of
labor and the evolution and persistence of gender norms. We find
that, consistent with existing hypotheses, the descendants of societies
that traditionally practiced plough agriculture, today have lower
rates of female participation in the workplace, in politics, and in
entrepreneurial activities, as well as a greater prevalence of attitudes
favoring gender inequality. We identify the causal impact of traditional
plough use by exploiting variation in the historical geo-climatic
suitability of the environment for growing crops that differentially
benefited from the adoption of the plough. Our IV estimates, based on
this variation, support the findings from OLS. To isolate the importance
of cultural transmission as a mechanism, we examine female labor
force participation of second-generation immigrants living within the
US.

[Cecil XIX]

In other news, some kindergartners actually did sing "God Bless the USA" outside the school.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X3Hkx-Liwk&feature=player_embedded

“You Republicans come go to a Republican area and do that, we don’t do that here,” one of the several hecklers yelled out early on. “This is ridiculous, this is sad. This is so crazy. This is sad.”

“Excuse me sir, can you let the kids sing please?” Mr. Turner’s staffer interjected.

“No!” came the bolted response. “The kids don’t even know what they’re singing! They got something you tell them to say! It’s ridiculous! It’s sad, sad, sad. Y’all are going to burn in hell! You all burn in hell! Shame on you! Shame on you!”

[Kadagar_AV]

That is... Shocking...

Poor kids, being used as chess pawns... They have no idea of what they are singing, they even need hastily handed out notes...

Then right wing media try to make it easier for the kids and have them chant "USA" like the question was pro or against USA...

OMG... That for me as a teacher is a TOTAL disgrace. Without saying anything about the debate, this if anything is children abuse.

[Major Robert Dump]

There was entiely too much going on in theat vidoe. And then an old dude with a harmonica showed up. It was too much too handle.

What was up with the cmapaign sign? It looks like some candidate was using the kids of supporters to sing, and people took issue with that because the news never showed up for other positive things the opponents did for the school. You had a guy yelling at the kids "you're all going to hell" You had a little black girl yelling at an old black man to "go away"

I confuse

[Kadagar_AV]

There was entiely too much going on in theat vidoe. And then an old dude with a harmonica showed up. It was too much too handle.

What was up with the cmapaign sign? It looks like some candidate was using the kids of supporters to sing, and people took issue with that because the news never showed up for other positive things the opponents did for the school. You had a guy yelling at the kids "you're all going to hell" You had a little black girl yelling at an old black man to "go away"

I confuse

Look at the black girl middle left... Her eyes running around thinking "what is happening"

Look at the bottom left girl, trying to hide behind the sheet she has been handed...

My... heart goes out to the kids. They had no idea what was going on.

Again, abuse of children, if anything.

[Fragony]

I remember it started really with the introduction of the plow and similar tools, which women weren't strong enough to handle or much less efficient at handling. Not sure how much that theory was supported and all though. Just something I remember reading once.

The plow is a much more recent invention than you would expect, what you read is certainly not true

[Moros]

You guys wanna do it again?
NOOOO!

Lol.


Also 6000 BC I don't classify as that recent Frags. And usually such things only appear to have been earlier as we are always conservative with out estimates which are based on scant evidence anyways; perhaps it was even quite a bit earlier as there are large settlements from before that era, which could indicate more advance agriculture in earlier times.

[Fragony]

You guys wanna do it again?
NOOOO!

Lol.


Also 6000 BC I don't classify as that recent Frags. And usually such things only appear to have been earlier as we are always conservative with out estimates which are based on scant evidence anyways; perhaps it was even quite a bit earlier as there are large settlements from before that era, which could indicate more advance agriculture in earlier times.

I have no idea where you have 6000 BC from, maybe they had some sort of a plow of some sorts but the heavy plow isn't any older than a 1000 years. in the old days they either rotated land or relied on floodings for the minerals required.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You guys wanna do it again?
NOOOO!

Lol.


Also 6000 BC I don't classify as that recent Frags. And usually such things only appear to have been earlier as we are always conservative with out estimates which are based on scant evidence anyways; perhaps it was even quite a bit earlier as there are large settlements from before that era, which could indicate more advance agriculture in earlier times.

Quite - where the theory really falls down though is that women can (and do) handle plows, be they oxen or man-pulled.

I tell you, it's all about mobility and the risk of death. men can go ranging for months at a time. A woman might go ranging and realise after a few weeks/a month that she's pregnant. at that point she becomes a liability - she becomes less and less mobile as the weeks progress, she starts having morning sickness, and she's now risking two of the tribe's lives instead of one.

[Kralizec]

women can (and do) handle plows, be they oxen or man-pulled.

Ah, so women would handle the actual gear while the men were merely beasts of burden, akin to oxen. Seems clear to me who had the more prestigious job ~;)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Ah, so women would handle the actual gear while the men were merely beasts of burden, akin to oxen. Seems clear to me who had the more prestigious job ~;)

her her

No, but for quite a few periods in history women often had more specialised and varied jobs than men - except for the VERY specialised jobs like smithing.