Social Engineering in Public Schools

[fisheromen]

Women in Combat

by Deborah DeBacker



Women in combat and Jessica Lynch have become quite controversial among conservative circuits. Many are calling for President Bush to change the Clinton policies that put women into combat areas. And well he should. However, those who value the role of women as mothers and nurturers, have already lost the next generation who are enrolled in the indoctrination camps called public schools. Women in combat and other politically correct thoughts must be taught in all schools requiring students to take statewide or national assessments.

Education officials like to call these authentic assessments. Beverly Eakman, author of several books, including Cloning of the American Mind, defines a "test" as an objective measure of a child's ability to solve a problem; an "assessment" is a social scientist's speculation about the environmental conditioning of the child.

As Ms. Eakman says, today’s standardized tests are more concerned with the child’s psyche, social values, and ability to conform, than his ability to calculate, use correct punctuation, or read a periodical table.

The indoctrination by the collectivists who run our schools is not lurking in some photocopied handout in 5th hour Social Studies class. Here in Republican-run Michigan, part of that indoctrination is a mandate resulting from questions in the Michigan Educational Assessment Program test, known as the MEAP. Oh yes, the MEAP asks plenty of politically correct multiple choice and essay questions, including but not limited to evolution, how privatization drives up costs, and what those chauvinist colonial men thought of women. But my favorite is the question asking students their opinion of women in combat.

MEAP scoring is based on rubrics requiring that part of the score be based on outside data to support the conclusion. The MEAP study booklet for teachers and students includes charts and data purporting to show that military officers and the public increasingly support women in combat. What is a student to do? To get a top grade, he must use the data provided and support women in combat.

Values tested in Michigan are called Core Democratic Values, as determined by a foundation called CIVITAS, not your local school board. This group has a similar philosophy to the Center for Civic Education, who determines the national standards for civics and government for the NAEP, national testing, along with the new federal curriculum. So pushing the idea of women in combat and other politically correct thoughts are not unique to Michigan. (See www.edwatch.org for more on CCE). Most parents are unaware of the content of these tests since obtaining, reviewing, or releasing the questions is unlawful in most states, and a possible federal felony.

What right does the state or federal government have to ask our children their opinions on political and possibly religious based beliefs? Just what happens to those answers? They are turned into the state for grading, and eventually make their way to the Center for Educational Performance. CEPI administers a computer database capable of tracking the attainment of every student in Michigan to determine what instructional programs really work.

Based on the answers, policies are initiated to improve the scoring on assessments. What is necessary is continual remediation until the student answers correctly. That is why many questions found on the 8th grade tests, are repeated in the 11th grade tests.

Besides worries about privacy, parents should realize that they have the near impossible job of de-programming their children every night if they attend test-administering schools. Most do not, and many that try will be unsuccessful. Today’s generation raised by public schools that teach what to think and not how to think will rule this country.

Schools must teach the acceptance of women in combat along with of other socially leftwing ideas to ensure their students pass our state and national assessments. The students must answer properly to pass those tests. Unless there is an unlikely immediate change in those who control our public schools, or an immediate mass exodus from public schools, we can be assured that the values historically held by Americans and Christians will not survive to the next generation. Those who control the test, control the curriculum and the thoughts and beliefs of our children.

1.To learn more see article by Bev Eakman, The Darkside of Nationwide Tests.

May 14, 2003

Deborah DeBacker [send her mail] is the chair of the Oakland County Republican Assembly. She has been a political activist in education issues for the last 10 years. Most important, she and her husband are the parents of three teenage boys.

Copyright © 2003 LewRockwell.com

[TheRogue]

How dare women have real careers, when they should be sitting at home, barefoot and pregnant, taking care of the brood!!

What garbage!!

TR

[Cool Texan]

What a crackpot!! :grin: :tongue:

[Straydog]

Originally posted by Cool Texan:
What a crackpot!! :grin: :tongue:

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Something we agree on, sarcasm dismissed. :grin:

[ 05-16-2003, 08:53 PM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[Silver Hilton]

Originally posted by fisheromen:
However, those who value the role of women as mothers and nurturers, have already lost the next generation who are enrolled in the indoctrination camps called public schools. Women in combat and other politically correct thoughts must be taught in all schools requiring students to take statewide or national assessments.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">So the author wants to tell my daughter that her role in society is solely as a mother and a nurturer? Despite the fact she is at the top of her class, and can hit and field better than the boys who are older than her? Despite having been handicapped for years with arthritis?

The author can go pee up a rope. She is clearly the one who has been brainwashed into defining 51% of humans as less capable and deserving of servitude.

The article notes she is the parent of three boys. I wonder what her opinion would be if some of her children were female.

[STGRule]

Excuse the **** out of me. (Yeah, that is not a good word). I am 47 years old. Married for 30+ years, raised two great, productive members of society. NOBODY better stand in front of me and tell me I was anything ............

Not going to say anything else. I am a capable, intelligent, human, mother, and wife who didn't before nor need now any other human (including some man) to tell me I'm a "good and productive" person. Two words deleted by me, as it wasn't nice words again. Attachment hardware, you.

[ 05-16-2003, 10:51 PM: Message edited by: STGRule ]

[STGRule]

Okay, I jumped on that one hook, line and sinker. But, I will not edit my other response. (Other than my spelling). I lowered myself to cuss words out of complete frustration. I had to listen to this line years ago and can't believe that young women have to listen to the same disparaging rhetoric now. My righteous indignation is overwhelming right now.

(National Honor Society in high school, honor roll and Dean's List in college)

[ 05-16-2003, 11:04 PM: Message edited by: STGRule ]

[Snapset]

Stg, I understand that you are ticked, but I haven't yet figured out which side of the argument you are on. TR and Silver Hilton, if you can't figure out why your remarks might be extremely offensive to women who have devoted themselves to raising children full time, please get a clue.

[pdxkevin]

Originally posted by TheRogue:
How dare women have real careers, when they should be sitting at home, barefoot and pregnant, taking care of the brood!!

What garbage!!

TR

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I disagree. I didn't get that take from the article. It mostly opposed women in combat, which for me... well, I can see both sides of the arguement. When it comes down to it, my preference is that women shouldn't be in combat roles. I am not saying that women should take subservient roles, nor am I implying that women can't handle the harsh task of being in combat. If I was taken prisoner with 2 others from my unit. One being male and one being female; I would have a much harder time hearing her being tortured than I would the guy. Really... that's what it comes down to for me.

As far as the barefoot and pregnant comment.... hmmm where exactly was that stated in the article? The role of being a stay at home mom is something that I hold in esteem. There are people who have kids because they want kids and love shaping them as they grow. One of the toughest and most important jobs in live is being a good parent; sacraficing, and giving your all to make sure that the next generation is headed down the right path.

Far too many who have kids yet treat them like a new car or pets or lawn ornements. They don't spend the time with them - that's what daycare is for, right? No, not everyone can organize their lives and live more simply in order to stay home with them. Yes, there are those raising kids as a single parent.

I have nothing against them. It is those who treat there kids like inconvienances, then turn around when they are out of control teens and wonder how it all happened. Or those who jump at the latest drug to make their kd behave.... those are the people I have a problem with.

I never said "all" of course there are exceptions.

Back to the main point of the article, it is about social engineering and used the acceptance of women in combat as an example of beleifs that the author beleives is being taught by people other than the parents, and parents having little time to instill their beleif structure over that taught by the school.

[ 05-17-2003, 06:29 AM: Message edited by: pdxkevin ]

[STGRule]

My side is this. Don't tell, teach, or expect anything except self-worth in a woman. Some will choose to work outside the home (yes, combat too) and some will will choose to work in the home and some will choose to do both. It is their choice, not somebody elses.

[pdxkevin]

Shouldn't that apply to both sexes?

When a couple gets married, it is no longer he/she: What he wants, what she wants. Decisions should, ideally, be made together, as equals, for what is best for the family.

[ 05-17-2003, 06:59 AM: Message edited by: pdxkevin ]

[fisheromen]

Wow! I see, so all of you who took exception to this article think that our schools should be social engineering experiments and testing should center around making sure that kids are learning the right PC lessons? If that's the case then I better fight really hard to make sure that it's my viewpoint that's being taught. NOT!

Give me a break! Did you read the article carefully?

Instead of having a knee jerk reaction why don't you think objectively about it. The point is that this kind of "education" is social engineering plain and simple. It isn't about reading, writing and arithmetic. It has no place in the school. Why would I want my tax dollars going to indoctrinate kids into something I don't agree with? How would you feel about that if the shoe was on the other foot?

Or maybe you think that since your position is "right" that it should be crammed down everyone else and their kids throat!

[TheRogue]

I've tried to think of what to say this morning. I'm home with my kids, while the wife is out for the day. So far, we've managed to have breakfast, make our beds, read three books, put together a couple of puzzles, and watched Sesame Street. I'm sorry I broke the rule about the housewife-woman thing, but "Oh well".

I'm wondering just what happened in your life, fisheromen, that has soured you so badly against public schooling. Is it that the evolution theory is being taught? Is it there's too many minorities? Teaching that women can do anything they want to do, and men can stay home and take care of the kids? I keep telling my wife that in a few more years when she's up to $90k, I'm quitting my job and staying home to be "house dad". I really and truly would love to know, so I can understand why the hatred is bleeding through so bad.

No-one ever said that you couldn't teach your kids other things besides what is taught in school, or that you couldn't supplement their learning with your own teachings at home. We as a society would be SO much better off if more families supplemented the learning at school with learning at home.

So, you'd like to do away with compulsory education. We have a hard enough time getting kids in school now, can you imagine what would happen to an entire generation of "less fortunate" kids, who have single moms (or dads), who are working full time? Do you suppose a lot of these kids would stop showing up for school?

It is sad, in some ways, the way our society has gone. My mother was a stay-at-home mom, by choice...but whenever she was asked about home-schooling, she said, "I'm not learned enough to teach grade school kids what they should know; besides, that's way too much time cooped up with Mom". My father made enough owning a small, 2-3 side gypo logging company that we were comfortable. Of course, we've gutted that form of working-wage jobs.

My wife never had enough growing up. Her dad was sick regularly, and her mom worked non-stop. My wife started to have to work to buy her own school clothes when she was 12..and she swore that her kids would never go through what she did.

So, we made the decision that we both would have professional careers. We both are college graduates, and do pretty well with the $$. We also heavily researched and referenced the two in-home daycare people we've had for our children, and we have yet to miss one swim lesson, one school activity, one birthparty, one (fill in the blank).

To me, so much of the conservative mantra nowadays is "well this is the way it should be". And, you know, I would agree with a lot of it, things should be different. BUT THEY AREN'T!! Living in the past just drags down those who live for the future.

I guess I'm done now, I could go on for hours on this subject. My wife's and my profession is extremely male-dominated, so she and I have heard all of this before; many, many times. I'll agree to disagree with you, and try to be more civil on the subject.

thank you

TR

Edit: If these military women had been conscripted by the draft, I would likely feel different. However, they are there by choice. They know the dangers. I felt no different for Jessica Lynch than any of the other POW's...they're all soldiers.

[ 05-17-2003, 10:11 AM: Message edited by: TheRogue ]

[STGRule]

TheRoque: [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

[fisheromen]

Rogue, bottom line, public school was for me, as for many others, a 12 year jail sentence ("I turned six in prison"). You might as well get used to the idea that there are a ton of people out there, MANY of whom are not religious zealots, who think public schools either should be done away with or completely overhauled. Calling them hateful won't do away with their argument (by the way, you seem incredibly bitter towards religious people, which you assume I am, what is the root of that?)

What am I missing here? This article is about using the public education system to promote a certain social agenda. I'd like to believe that I'd be a big enough person to admit it was wrong if it was my religious or social belief's that kids were being indoctrinated into. The issue isn't women in combat here, it is using the classroom as a bully pulpit. Can't anyone else see this or do you think that liberal causes are so right they should be taught this way or that this just isn't happening?

I just reread the article. NOWHERE does the author talk about assigning the role of women to the home or is that even hinted at. It talks about "assessment" testing (ie about attitudes and beliefs) regarding political issues and modifying curriculum to indoctrinate children based on such testing. The issue used as an example is women in combat. Why is this important in our schools to teach one viewpoint on any political subject let alone one that there is significant disagreement about?

What I hear Rogue and STG and others saying is that as long as you agree with the school on the issue you have no problem with them indoctrinating everyone's kids into it. What I, and the article, are saying is that it isn't the role of public school to do any indoctrination in the areas of political or religious beliefs.

How hypocritical if you turn around and get angry when religious people want their values taught in school. Do you do that? Just curious.

BTW, if you want to see hatred and vehemence oozing all over the place reread your first responses to the article. How dare someone disagree with you on women in combat! It's garbage and they can go pee up a rope!

So much for tolerance!

[ 05-17-2003, 02:10 PM: Message edited by: fisheromen ]

[pdxkevin]

I see the problem....



it got off track...

[pdxkevin]

I never said that only women can raise kids. Not even close. I firmly beleive that each brings a different and unigue perspective to the child's development. I hate movies and tv shows that show the man as incompetant around kids.

I would trade my morning at the office with your morning at home with the kids any time.

US military personel currently are on a volunteer basis. Yes they should have understood what they are getting into when signing on the line. Still does not chance the fact, for me, it would be harder to hear a women being totured than a guy. Worse yet would be a child.

Being able to stay at home dad would be great. I wish that there was a way we could both stay home. I need to work on that independantly wealthy plan more. [img]graemlins/idea.gif[/img]

Get rid of compulsory school? No. Vouchers for everyone including homeschoolers - yes. I'm sure that there would people who work the system with the kids getting the shaft. The concept needs more development but I feel it would be a step in the right direction.

From a couple income/tax comparisons across generations, it looks like on the whole we are paying the same for eveything in proportion. One exception ~ taxes. They percentage that they take is seriously larger. If our overall tax burden was set to the same proportions they were back in the 40s-50s, many, many more families could live off a single income. But that is taking the thread down a whole different path of discussion.

It's great to hear that you are taking active roles in your children's lives, as you should. I am sure that have seen or know people who couldn't tell you what their kid's favorite tv show is or the friends names. As I stated earlier there are alsway exceptions.

Desiring things to be different and working towards that goal is not living in the past. A lot of changes have been for the better: ADA, EEOC, OSHA, etc... Some of the changes were down the wrong path (the current secular-humanistic religous philosphy of the public schools being one hotly contested).

Having a carreer is great but NEVER look down your nose at, nor denograte, those who choose being a parent as thier fulltime career.

As far as using Jessica Lynch as a point of reference, have you ever asked yourself why the Dr. who (rightly) reported her abuse and location to the Marines, wasn't prompted to report the abuse of eight other soldiers. Because they were male? They are all soldier.

I feel the same incredible amount of gratitude and respect for any and all putting thier lives on the line for this country.

[Silver Hilton]

Fisheromen,

The problem is that school is a messy place to teach any set of values that differs from those codified in the basic laws of the country. As soon as you get to values that are religiously based but not legally based, you make the schoolyard into a battlground of competing pulpits. In the major metropolitan areas you can find adherents of religions that teach that homosexuality is OK and homosexuals are evil. You can find adherents of religions that say divorce is OK and divorce is evil. And so on. So, syaing that you want religious values taught in school is a very difficult proposition, unless what one means is, "I want MY religion's values taught in schools." Which is usually the case.

I teach my kids values at home, which I believe is the proper place. I expect them to learn a bit about public order in the schools, but it's my job as a parent to have taught them about that before they got to school.

[Hoosier Daddy]

The bulk of this article does seem to target "indoctrination" in schools, looks like the women in combat issue is used as an example.

That said, no one should be teaching children of either gender what they can and can't do with their lives. I was raised for a good chunk of my life by a single working mom. I'm married to a wonderful woman with more education than I have and more drive than I likely will ever have. I am the proud daddy of a little girl who is being encouraged to do as much with herself as she possibly can, regardless of what direction that takes her. I would be the absolute last to try to restrict or specify what anyone of any gender can do with their life.

With that out of the way, I will finish by saying that being a mother and nuturer is the most important job on the planet. Being a father and nurturer is a very close second, and will always be the most important job a male can have. My wife chose to put her career on hold to raise our daughter, and there is no way I or my daughter will ever be able to repay her for that.

[fisheromen]

My understanding of the article is precisely your point. But I would take it further than religious issues to include political ones. I don't think it's right for teachers of history or social studies or literature or whatever to use their courses to indoctrinate school kids into a particular way of thinking on issues where there are many diverse mainstream viewpoints.

[Lured In]

Teach the kids to think for themselves and you won't have to tell them what to think. Teach them solid moral values and you won't have to worry about political correctness.

The problem that I see is that schools are lacking in both of these areas. I think a better assessment of a child's critical thinking skills would be a question like this...

"Who would you rather be in combat with?
1. A women who is a sharpshooter, has the physical strength to meet the demands of combat, knows first aid and CPR, and can read and navigate with a map and compass.

OR

2. A man is is very strong but cannot hit the broadside of a barn with his M16.

Chances are some of the children would select number two, but I bet the vast majority who understand what is important in combat would select number one. The "assessment" focuses on the capabilities of an individual, not their gender.

I don't want a school to teach my children that women belong in combat. I want them to teach my children that it is an individual's talents and drive that make them fit for combat. Let them make up their own mind on who (not by gender) is fit for combat.

After all, isn't that what we want our kids to do? Value people for who they are ("the content of their character" as Dr. King put it), not by their skin color or gender?

[Hoosier Daddy]

Originally posted by Lured In:
Teach the kids to think for themselves and you won't have to tell them what to think. Teach them solid moral values and you won't have to worry about political correctness.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">It's not a school's job to teach solid moral values. That's the parent's job. Enforce them, maybe, provide a place where they can thrive, yes. But not TEACH them. If kids don't already have the moral foundation YOU want them to have, sending them to school is a joke. And as far as teaching them to think, teachers used to do that. Then we decided that we needed mandatory testing to make sure they were doing their job of raising our kids for us, and suceeded only in making sure kids know how to take tests. Not thinking, REMEMBERING.

[ 05-19-2003, 02:23 PM: Message edited by: Hoosier Daddy ]

[TheRogue]

Originally posted by Hoosier Daddy:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Originally posted by Lured In:
Teach the kids to think for themselves and you won't have to tell them what to think. Teach them solid moral values and you won't have to worry about political correctness.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">It's not a school's job to teach solid moral values. That's the parent's job. Enforce them, maybe, provide a place where they can thrive, yes. But not TEACH them. If kids don't already have the moral foundation YOU want them to have, sending them to school is a joke. And as far as teaching them to think, teachers used to do that. Then we decided that we needed mandatory testing to make sure they were doing their job of raising our kids for us, and suceeded only in making sure kids know how to take tests. Not thinking, REMEMBERING. </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">[img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/applause.gif[/img]

[Lured In]

Hoosier Daddy....while I more than agree with the spirit in your response (that is up to parents to teach solid moral values), I am not specifically referring to moral values that differ from societal values. I should have clarified my earlier response, and that it was not targeted just at teachers in school. (Some parents are apparently lacking in this area as well.)

For example, don't cheat. It has applications at home and school. It must be taught and enforced at both places. Don't steal, don't lie, don't hit people, etc. These are not subjective moral values. They are legally enforceable(sp) in life. They used to give us a "citizenship" mark for our behavior in school, remember that? That set the expectation for your behavior as an adult and made a logical connection to the rest of society. Imagine today in the PC world telling a child they were less than an excellent citizen in class? Now its green, yellow and red cards...? Where is the application in that?

I couldn't agree more that things such as standardized testing have left our teacher's hands tied and our children often incapable of critical/self reflective thought. [img]graemlins/1zhelp.gif[/img]

[happybrew]

Originally posted by TheRogue:
How dare women have real careers, when they should be sitting at home, barefoot and pregnant, taking care of the brood!!

What garbage!!

TR

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">My wife would certainly disagree with you that taking care of the brood isn't a real career. So would my mom.

happybrew

[ 05-20-2003, 08:37 AM: Message edited by: happybrew ]

[happybrew]

Originally posted by STGRule:
My side is this. Don't tell, teach, or expect anything except self-worth in a woman. Some will choose to work outside the home (yes, combat too) and some will will choose to work in the home and some will choose to do both. It is their choice, not somebody elses.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Seeing as the author is a female who obviously works outside the home, I don't think the author would disagree with you too much. It seemed to me that her concern was mostly with what she perceived women were being told to do. Women have a unique and valuable role in our society that cannot be duplicated well by men. I think her concern was
mostly that this role is being downplayed, and women's choices thus being limited.

happybrew

[DanS]

Women have a unique and valuable role in our society that cannot be duplicated well by men

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">You mean they can give birth? Or is there something else only a woman can do well?

[fisheromen]

Actually they alone can also nurse a baby with the most nourishing, best stuff for the kid. It's almost like it was designed that way for a purpose. Funny how women IN GENERAL are more nurturing than men IN GENERAL. I know that sounds sexist but it's just reality. Does that mean women shouldn't work outside the home? Of course not. Does it mean there is a unique role they can choose to play? Yes. Why not value and honor that unique role instead of downplaying it for the sake of equality with men?

[Hoosier Daddy]

Sorry Lured In, I wasn't actually targeting what you said in my response. I just used it as an excuse to soap box again.

[Degner]

Originally posted by DanS:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Women have a unique and valuable role in our society that cannot be duplicated well by men

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">You mean they can give birth? Or is there something else only a woman can do well? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">What about fetching beer from the fridge and opening it for you? :grin: :grin: :grin:

[ 05-20-2003, 04:11 PM: Message edited by: Degner ]

[TheRogue]

Fisheromen....

I'll apologize for my original knee-jerk reaction to the article. It was more in sarcasm than in actual feeling. As I've said, I hear about "women should be staying home" all the time, and it really irks me.

Happybrew....

I'll also apologize to you for that sarcasm, it appears that I am denigrating those who make the choice to devote their careers to being full-time mothers. It was not my intention, and trust me, I don't feel that way. Again, a knee-jerk reaction.

I would never want to indicate that the job of being a mother is anything less than very high priority!! I just wanted to make the point that so many times, when you start down this road, it ends up back to that old ideal of "all women should stay at home to raise the kids, and those who don't must have something wrong with them."

I firmly believe that you can raise a wonderful family in this day, with BOTH working parents, but it requires the husband to take on many more "non-traditional" duties, which I gladly do. My father never changed a diaper, I believe the phrase was "over my dead body, that's woman's work". Pretty disgusting to me now, but I know more than a few people who feel that way today.

Again...these are soldiers, they are volunteers. They are indoctrinated in the aspects of war, and the women full well know what could happen to them. Questioning their RIGHT to be in combat seems ludicrous.

My last .02

TR

[STGRule]

I have only one small problem with the women in combat portion of the conversations. It has been stated a couple of times that since it is a volunteer army, it's okay for women because they know what they are getting into. I believe that even in a draft situation it is still okay for women to serve in combat. If it is good enough for my son, it is good enough for my daughter. If it is a horrible thought to think your daughter could be drafted, it should be equally horrible for your son to be drafted.
I am the mother of a son and a daughter.

[The Fishing Geek]

Originally posted by fisheromen:
Actually they alone can also nurse a baby with the most nourishing, best stuff for the kid.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Incorrect. Men can, have have, lactated. Physiologically, men have everything necessary to do it, and there has been documented cases of it happening. Heck, there are stories throughout history of the mother dying during childbirth and the father suddenly being able to produce milk. The mother is the natural choice due to many aspects, but men can do it.

If you want more info, start here.

[happybrew]

Originally posted by DanS:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Women have a unique and valuable role in our society that cannot be duplicated well by men

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">You mean they can give birth? Or is there something else only a woman can do well? </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Are you arguing that men and women are the same, physiology aside? If that is your view, I don't think it will stand up to scrutiny. I've seen articles in the paper about female police officers being able to resolve situations that normally would have neded in the use of force. I've seen female managers approach problems with a different mindset than male managers, and at times it is a more appropriate way to deal with a situation. Women commit far fewer violent crimes than men do. I think my view is very pro-woman. I think it is a shame in our society that motherhood is often seen as as a second-class occupation. My wife has taken flack from her parents for being a stay at home mom, as they hav suggested that it's a waste. My mom took flack from other women for being a stay at home mom. Let's look at my job, and my wife's job. I manage a restaurant. It's not rocket science and anyone could do it. I make money for my boss. It involves handling money, cooking food, washing dishes, putting food on the table, setting schedules, and keeping people from geting grumpy. Guess what... My wife does the same thing, but unlike my job, it is rocket science, and nobody else could do it. So who has the more important job in the family? My wife does. Yet people look at my job, and envy my position of authority, other companies try to steal me away, and my boss works really hard to keep my happy, even sent me to Hawaii once. People look at my wife's job, which is very similar in the tasks involved, and say "Five kids??? Are you crazy??? Haven't you figured out what causes that yet??" And they completely fail to realize how much more important her job is than mine, and how nobody but her could do it.

happybrew

[happybrew]

Rogue:

happybrew

[fisheromen]

You'll have to forgive me Geek, I'm a little gullible: are you serious?

[SandySteel]

Wow this conversation has gone through everything from morals in school to men lactating.
Being a school teacher I want to emphasize some points that haven't been touched on.

I honestly believe that there are those on the right end of the political spectrum who are attempting to eliminate the efficacy of public schools by eliminating their funding and foisting the concept of vouchers on them along with widespread standardized testing (which this right wing author attempts to turn into a left wing idea) I honestly believe they don't want the public to be critical thinkers. They are under the delusion that education occurs as a simple teaching of facts and skills. They want to strip out the very creativity and critical thinking that Lured in values in education. They believe that education should be a vaccum where nothing but the three Rs are taught. If you want to create 12 year prisons this is the way to do it fisheromen.

I do teach values every day
I teach;
hard work should be valued
excellence is its own reward
cheating is wrong
sharing is a good thing
being creative is the height of learning
being honest is important
thinking critically is the duty of everyone

I would never think to try to dissuade a student from their values and opinions where it wasn't a widely held value like those above. An example is a persuasive paper I asked my 8th grade students to write on a topic related to an amendment to the constitution. Many of the views of the students I disagreed with. I would never tell the students that I disagreed with them. I wouldn't even share my perspective on their ideas. However, if they used a leap in logic or didn't back their ideas up with examples, facts and details I would have them fill in the gaps. It is much more important that they think for themselves. It goes against the entire concept of democracy to force one's own opinions on your students. It also goes against democracy to cheapen the education students receive in public schools by stripping them of their funding or making them use standardized tests as the primary mode of students assessment.

Eric

[The Fishing Geek]

Originally posted by fisheromen:
You'll have to forgive me Geek, I'm a little gullible: are you serious?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Quite.

[happybrew]

You bring up many good points SandySteel. It is true that the right is the side that instituted standardized testing as a way of holding schools accountable. I remember it well. Then they criticize the left for what those tests contain.

I don't know that people are trying to destroy the school system by cutting its funding. I think that what they want is for the schools to utilize their funding more efficiently, and one way of doing that is forcing them to get by with less. It would be a cold-hearted political move to deliberately attempt to make schools ineffective. I agree that student-teacher ratios could be dramatically improved. I disagree that it would take as much money as some say it would take.

As for school vouchers and the values of those families with children in school:

If I wanted to send my children to a Catholic school, it would take a third of my income, and that's just for elementary. When they get up to highschool age, it would be closer to half. Nevertheless, Catholic schools educate children at a significantly lower cost than public schools. For my five children to attend a parochial school, it would cost me the same amount as Portland public schools spend on one child. A voucher system would allow me to send my kids to a private school at lower cost to the government that if the government educated them. The savings could be used to improve student teacher ratios in the public schools. Now why would I want to do that? Aside from whatever one thinks about the academics, the teaching of contraception and the mechanics and practical aspects of fornication and abortion in sex education classes is something that I believe is gravely wrong. Sure, I can have my kids opt out of it, but the very presence of those classes creates an atmosphere which is at odds with the values I try to instill in my children. Sending my kids into an atmosphere that I find morally repressive is not something I care to do. Why do I say morally repressive? Because the content that is taught implies a certain value system, and this value system sets aside those who do not adhere to it into an outsider status. My children are just that: children, not adults. I remember first hand all of the pressure to conform to a moral system I did not believe in when I was in school. There is no need to cause them anxiety before they are adults. When they are adults, they will be better able to deal with it than when they are children and adolescents. They will have the maturity and judgement necessary as adults to make their own decisions, rather than being pressured into something that is wrong because they lack that maturity and judgement as adolescents. The state has acknowledged that they have an obligation to educate the population. By forcing those who have moral qualms about the content and the environment to pay their own way, they have in effect abrogated their obligation. A voucher system would merely allow the state to meet their obligation without forcing parents such as myself to choose between their morals and their children's education. I homeschool my children. I incur expenses, but not great ones. Not everyone is able to do that, however. Those parents who don't are forced to send their children into an environment that is detrimental to their religious upbringing.

I'm sure you do your best to avoid forcing your values on your students. I'm sure most teachers do. It sounds to me like you are a very good teacher. But the structure of the education system is such that certain values are upheld, regardless of what the teachers do. It's not the teachers that are to blame, but the way the system is structured. A voucher system would allow everyone to be happy by allowing them a choice in their children's education.
I know that there are a lot of people who fear the loss of money to public schools that a voucher system would bring, but the current system keeps people with one set of values happy at the expense of those with another set of values. It keeps all of the money for one set, and tells the rest that they either foot the bill out of pocket or take the existing public school system. That is not just.


happybrew

[Snapset]

Sandy Steel, that is an ideal standard for teachers. I commend you for sticking to it.

Geek, are you writing about that fellow performer who was your roommate whan you worked for the freakshow on Castro Street in SF :shocked: :grin: ?

[The Fishing Geek]

I know that this is going off topic and all, but I am quite serious about male lactation. This isn't one of my jokes. It really has, and does, happen. No, not to me, but thanks for asking.

[happybrew]

Geek is correct. It is physiologically possible. It's not likely, though. I'm sure my wife would appreciate it if I lactated, though. It would certainly free up some time for her, although I don't think the baby would like having to get hair in his mouth. Don't anybody tell her it's possible! She'll make me start taking hormones or something! :shocked:

happybrew

[The Fishing Geek]

I maintained a website for awhile that was targeted at fathers whose babies were breastfed. Unfortunately most all of it was lost when the place who hosted it *disappeared*.

[DanS]

Are you arguing that men and women are the same, physiology aside?

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">No......I'm saying that, physiology aside, it is the individual, not their gender, that determines what they can do.

[Cool Texan]

Originally posted by The Fishing Geek:
I know that this is going off topic and all, but I am quite serious about male lactation. This isn't one of my jokes. It really has, and does, happen. No, not to me, but thanks for asking.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I dont want to know why you know that.

:grin: :tongue:

[Straydog]

Originally posted by Cool Texan:
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">Originally posted by The Fishing Geek:
I know that this is going off topic and all, but I am quite serious about male lactation. This isn't one of my jokes. It really has, and does, happen. No, not to me, but thanks for asking.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I dont want to know why you know that.

:grin: :tongue: </font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helvetica">I learned it in public education........ part of my social engineering. Maybe not politicaly correct to teach such smut in Texas??

[ 05-24-2003, 07:06 AM: Message edited by: Straydog ]

[fisheromen]

I too appreciated your measured response SandySteel. Part of the struggle for conservatives is that some of what they consider to be common sense morals have fallen by the wayside.

I don't see this author as saying education should be stripped of all the morals that are commonly held by mankind. There are things that the vast majority of us can agree on as right and your short list of them is excellent. Do you think that most educators can remain somewhat neutral in teaching these basic morals without seeking to persuade children about their views which are more debatable?

What I object to is violating the idea that Jefferson addresses in his treatise on religious freedom (I don't have a copy in front of me) where he essentially says that forcing someone to pay to have an opinion different than their's propagated is sinful and tyranical (I think those were his exact adjectives). Many on the right think that many on the left are quick to say that schools or other public institutions shouldn't be a platform for propagating religious or political beliefs when it is a conservative issue at stake, but then turn around and do it themselves (not necessarily out of the wrong motive) under various banners.