Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by JW92)
    This is the actual proposal, and has nothing to do with teaching 5 year olds about violence in the home.
    Exactly! Thank you, that's what I said!
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lefty Leo)
    Lo and behold, a person who opposes teaching children not to beat their partners because it is "indoctrination" yet supports the Christian nature of this country and various other BNP policies.

    Oh well, fascists aren't often known for intellectual coherency.
    I don't support the Christian nature of this country. Anyone who knows me knows I'm an atheist, but I'm not ignorant enough to dismiss the fact that the country is built on Christian principles, values and customs, and that Christian institutions have had a phenomenal impact on British society. I don't think any form of indoctrination is good when it concerns children as young as five. It's on par with child abuse. It's the issue of age more than anything else.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Melz0r)
    I don't think I'm twisting it, I think it's a fairly hysterically-written piece trying to link what the government is doing to promote "healthy, non-violent relationships" (that is all this article is based on, after all) to Harriet Harman and a proposed feminist agenda to repress men.
    But she has been widely criticised for her supposedly "anti-men" views before. She has particularly been targeted by outsider pressure groups such as Fathers 4 Justice (I believe two members protested from the roof of her house). Not only that, but she has admitted herself that she "could never be Prime Minister" due to the number of men who would "flee" the country.

    So the Mail have written nothing new and outrageous here.
    And I cant speak for other women. But I wouldnt want my very young son learning about domestic violence at school. That would be my job. As his mother, I am in the position to tell him what is socially and morally acceptable. Considering so many kids cant spell or write adequately, I'd be far more concerned with that.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by Antonia87)
    But she has been widely criticised for her supposedly "anti-men" views before. She has particularly been targeted by outsider pressure groups such as Fathers 4 Justice (I believe two members protested from the roof of her house). Not only that, but she has admitted herself that she "could never be Prime Minister" due to the number of men who would "flee" the country.

    So the Mail have written nothing new and outrageous here.
    And I cant speak for other women. But I wouldnt want my very young son learning about domestic violence at school. That would be my job. As his mother, I am in the position to tell him what is socially and morally acceptable. Considering so many kids cant spell or write adequately, I'd be far more concerned with that.
    I'm sure you are a fantastic mother (I'm not being sarcastic), but not everybody is. Not every child grows up in an environment where they are taught what's right and wrong. You can ooh-aah about the decline of society or you can try and reverse the process by properly educating a new generation.

    Also, what the Mail has done is picked up on one phrase and turned it into this idea of five year olds being told not to beat up women - it's not going to happen like that. The national curriculum starts from five, not beating up women does come within the remit of "healthy and non-violent relationships", but that's as far as it goes. There are no more elaborate plans than that for indoctrinating our five year olds.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by necessarily benevolent)
    I don't support the Christian nature of this country. Anyone who knows me knows I'm an atheist, but I'm not ignorant enough to dismiss the fact that the country is built on Christian principles, values and customs, and that Christian institutions have had a phenomenal impact on British society. I don't think any form of indoctrination is good when it concerns children as young as five. It's on par with child abuse. It's the issue of age more than anything else.
    Please read the article again and find anyone from the government actually stating that they are going to give a five year old a lesson about why they must not beat up a woman.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Antonia87)
    Hold on a flinging-flanging moment.

    The Daily Mail is questioning whether or not actually bringing such lessons into the classroom is controversial, not the physical act of beating a woman.
    Writers of the Daily Mail, being human, already know that attacking women is unacceptable. They are, however, opposing to such ideals being taught in schools.
    And I agree with them. It shouldn't be taught in schools. We should be focusing on getting pupils to read and write competently and solve even the most basic of sums.
    Lessons on relationships and social conduct should be kept at home and amongst family and peers.

    You left-wingers make me giggle. There's nothing wrong with this article. But being wishy-washy liberals you'll take it out of context, twist it and make it something its not - because it comes from a conservative, or right-winged source.
    Really? Because they consistently run stories claiming that the vast majority of rape allegations are acts of vengance by bitter women/part of some feminist conspiracy. Through this irrational denail they reinforce the view that violence against women is not an important issue.

    The Mail hates women. Just like it hates gays, blacks, immigrants, or indeed any form of foreigner. No point denying it. Besides their readership agree with you about 'wishy washy liberals' so would probably accept my accusation of bigotry and wear it with pride.

    EDIT: Plus their 'femail' magazine/webpage is just utter misogyny.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    come on, its the Daily Fail/Wail

    they have a standard template for 50% of their 'news' stories, where they just fill in a few names & some random words, & out pops another waste of paper.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by santeria)
    Really? Because they consistently run stories claiming that the vast majority of rape allegations are acts of vengance by bitter women/part of some feminist conspiracy. Through this irrational denail they reinforce the view that violence against women is not an important issue.

    The Mail hates women. Just like it hates gays, blacks, immigrants, or indeed any form of foreigner. No point denying it. Besides their readership agree with you about 'wishy washy liberals' so would probably accept my accusation of bigotry and wear it with pride.

    EDIT: Plus their 'femail' magazine/webpage is just utter misogyny.
    That is a rather striking and absurd comment to make so I'll ask you to back that up with sources.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JW92)
    This is the actual proposal, and has nothing to do with teaching 5 year olds about violence in the home.
    Well, it's not really just that, is it?

    The stated point of the report is to reduce violent against women. I put it to you that it would be hard to teach children about non-violent relationships, in the setting of reducing violence against women, without reference to the alternative. That is rather an understatement, in fact.
    We are talking about teaching children about wife beating, it's as simple as that.

    Now, whether you regard that as wrong is another matter.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by Antonia87)
    Hold on a flinging-flanging moment.

    The Daily Mail is questioning whether or not actually bringing such lessons into the classroom is controversial, not the physical act of beating a woman.
    Writers of the Daily Mail, being human, already know that attacking women is unacceptable. They are, however, opposing to such ideals being taught in schools.
    And I agree with them. It shouldn't be taught in schools. We should be focusing on getting pupils to read and write competently and solve even the most basic of sums.
    Lessons on relationships and social conduct should be kept at home and amongst family and peers.
    You left-wingers make me giggle. There's nothing wrong with this article. But being wishy-washy liberals you'll take it out of context, twist it and make it something its not - because it comes from a conservative, or right-winged source.
    not everyone has an ideal homelife to help them understand these issues. many chilren come from broken homes and families. and at five years old, how many of their "peers" aka other 5 year olds will be able to teach them anything?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    When I was at school, all the kids already knew it was wrong to hit girls. And people with glasses. It's just law of the playground.

    Domestic violence doesn't take place because people don't realise that it's wrong, so I don't know what they hope to achieve with this.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rinsed)
    Well, it's not really just that, is it?

    The stated point of the report is to reduce violent against women. I put it to you that it would be hard to teach children about non-violent relationships, in the setting of reducing violence against women, without reference to the alternative. That is rather an understatement, in fact.
    We are talking about teaching children about wife beating, it's as simple as that.

    Now, whether you regard that as wrong is another matter.
    The part of the article I quoted is the only part which properly stated the government proposals. It seemed to me the entire story was twisted around the word "nonviolent".
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The Mail is suggesting it's ridiculous to teach young kids not to beat their future wives. They aren't suggesting wife beating is somehow acceptable. Stop being a douche bag, deliberately misconstruing this.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Domestic violence is wrong everybody should know that. Teaching it to 5 year olds is stupid. You want to tell them about rape and murder too so you can't tell them not to do it.

    And why is the emphasis on boys beating girls. I know that it's more common than girls beating boys but that happens too and is just as severe and horrific as the other way around.

    If you're teaching about domestic violence cover ALL of it.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Long Haired Teen)
    Domestic violence is wrong everybody should know that. Teaching it to 5 year olds is stupid. You want to tell them about rape and murder too so you can't tell them not to do it.

    And why is the emphasis on boys beating girls. I know that it's more common than girls beating boys but that happens too and is just as severe and horrific as the other way around.

    If you're teaching about domestic violence cover ALL of it.
    which is why the proposal is for ''educating children and young people about healthy, nonviolent relationships''.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    god, the daily mail is just foul. the article is completely riddled with sexism. it's disgusting.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Antonia87)
    That is a rather striking and absurd comment to make so I'll ask you to back that up with sources.
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...ce-system.html

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worl...o-Britain.html

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...iled-year.html

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...r-300-000.html

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...ried-rape.html

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...nted-life.html

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...date-rape.html

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...gal-first.html

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...nightmare.html

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...en-Mirren.html

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/ar...iled-rape.html

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ed-months.html

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...ruth-rape.html

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ing-lover.html

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...ree-court.html

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...pens-them.html

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...night-out.html

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...bies-life.html

    These are all found from 2 pages of typing 'rape' or 'cry rape' on the Mail's search function. (Although there are over 150 pages of such articles).

    All of these articles fail to mention the actual known facts about rape: http://www.fawcettsociety.org.uk/index.asp?PageID=599 (including the crucial point that the police believe that only around 3% of rape complainants are lying).

    The irrational populism of the Mail does however lead them to write a few articles about the injustices faced by rape victims.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...rs-guilty.html

    Perhaps these failings can be explained, in part, through the fact that the Mail is a very widely read newspaper and so its implicit view that rape allegations are very often 'life-destroying lies' is very much within the public consiousness.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    which is why the proposal is for ''educating children and young people about healthy, nonviolent relationships''.

    Reading you may see, "They pointed out the new classes will not cover violence against men."

    What do you know. There is some sexism there after all. Just not the way people are going on about here
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The Daily Mail makes me cry.
    x
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    :giggle:
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.