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

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.