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

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?

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

Word.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

Justin Bieber is fine though.

---

Justin Bieber contributes to a learning environment?

Quote:

---

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

---

Eternal war, then.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Eternal war, then.

---

War? With me? Count me out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

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

---

It is not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Montmorency

Justin Bieber contributes to a learning environment?

---

Most definitely! Keyword: motivation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

I thought your job was to teach them algebra.

---

Actually, I only have social science classes right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

It is not.



Most definitely! Keyword: motivation.



Actually, I only have social science classes right now.

---

For some reason that scares me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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...?)

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...?)

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rajpoot

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rajpoot

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rajpoot

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?

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?

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spankythehippo

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rajpoot

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rajpoot

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

---

Nope, not at all really, I am radically moderate

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

radically moderate

---

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

:clown:

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

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...?)

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rajpoot

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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.

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.

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rajpoot

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).

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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 is doing over there.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullhead

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 is doing over there.

---

Starting to get the idea, the left is insane

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullhead

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 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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

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".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

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..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

that gender roles are largely social constructs.

---

Some people actually believe this :shame:

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:

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.

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hax

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullhead

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skullhead

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Starting to get the idea, the left is insane

---

As is the right. And Center.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

This.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

They're still social constructs.

---

Not 100%.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

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.

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.

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

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

---

I haven't read it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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.

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!"

You read 'van nature goed' thanks but no thanks

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kadagar_AV

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.