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

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ironside

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.

Quote:

---

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

In your society men are being encouraged to breastfeed.

Your opinion is not valid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tellos Athenaios

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

....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.

Quote:

---

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

For Moros http://www.geenstijl.nl/mt/archieven..._een_baas.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spankythehippo

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


Aaaaanyways...

http://www.wpix.com/news/wpix-god-bl...,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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rajpoot

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Stranger

Or a nazi march song?

---

I can recommend: Die Lore. It's catchy and gets a party going.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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

Quote:

---

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."

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

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?

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

Nah.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

Nah.

---

Thanks for clearing that up!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moros

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 :)

You mean this?

Quote:

---

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.

---

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_X3H...layer_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!”

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PVC

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 ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

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.