Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flying Cookie)
    Ideologies are a bit like political parties. They do harm for the sake of keeping their original set of views intact rather than adapting to new social circumstances and factors.

    That's why I prefer judging policies independently of a party or ideology. For example, I'd score liberal on the whole, despite having certain rightist views on some issues. I don't believe in sets of beliefs or "greater good".

    Some politicians, for example, come up with a crap policy on heathcare and everyone hates them. After a while, the same politcian proposes a policy on education and people don't even pay attention. If a, b, c are incorrect, it doesn't mean that x, w, z will be incorrect as well.

    That's why I prefer arguing about specific moves and policies rather than generalizing. Feminism isn't good or bad, certain policies are and some aren't. Same goes for pretty much all other ideologies. People tend to take things out of the box and settle for general opinions of a general thing and can't be bothered thinking about the specific circumstances to which the ideas are adapted.
    You are basically espousing what egalitarianism is. If it's good for oneside and isn't at the expense of someone else in a major way then it should be done. [EDIT] Basically if we let everyone divide into factions you end up with factions gaining power and trying to gain as much for their faction as possible, regardless of if it as the expense of the majority or not.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Long Haired Teen)
    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
    Except violence against men in relationships is nowhere near as big a problem as violence against women. Maybe it should be touched on, yeah, but people are already complaining that this is taking up too much space on the curriculum.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dionysus)
    Since when the hell was not beating your wife 'controversial' or 'feminist'? :rolleyes:
    It smacks of Trotskyism if you ask me.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    Except violence against men in relationships is nowhere near as big a problem as violence against women. Maybe it should be touched on, yeah, but people are already complaining that this is taking up too much space on the curriculum.
    The issues i have with that are

    1: Teaching it from a biast stand point. Like i said voilence towards women is more common but as long as it is pointed out that it happens to men as well and is no more accepatable and that they can recive suport and treated as like any other victim then i don't mind.

    2: Should it really be taught to 5 year olds. I think that it's too young. at 5 most wouldn't understand the kinds of things happening. Talking about domestic violence for kids in secondary school as part of PHSE then okay.

    3. If this is being used when there is nothing else then okay. But schools teaching morals in the place of academia is wrong. There's a problem with standards of education and teaching this in place of Science or English, i believe would be a mistake.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sadie-kiki)
    I think the controversy is about bothering the minds of little kids with stuff like that...
    no-one denies that wife-beating is wrong, but seriously, kids grow up quickly enough anyway, can we not just just let them run around and have fun without trying to educate them about the perils of adulthood the whole time?
    A sensible post at last. Of course the Mail isn't condoning domestic violence - it's just pointing out that it's hardly necessary or appropriate to teach young children such grubby adult issues. Wow, who would have thought the people who use this forum will be the next generation of lawyers, doctors and politicians :rolleyes: ? The OP is clearly a massive dumb-ass.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think this is a good thing coz it might be happening in their home and it would be good for them not to be raised believing hitting women is acceptable. Also, they might be able to tell someone that can help stop it.

    The daily mail come across sexist, anything to do with helping women is "controversial" or "feminist" .

    Even if men are more likely to be victims of violence, they are less likely to be victims of DOMESTIC violence. violence agaisnt men tend to be inflected BY men, if they are taught to be less violent to women, it may make them less violent all over
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ziggycj)
    I think this is a good thing coz it might be happening in their home and it would be good for them not to be raised believing hitting women is acceptable. Also, they might be able to tell someone that can help stop it.

    The daily mail come across sexist, anything to do with helping women is "controversial" or "feminist" .

    Even if men are more likely to be victims of violence, they are less likely to be victims of DOMESTIC violence. violence agaisnt men tend to be inflected BY men, if they are taught to be less violent to women, it may make them less violent all over

    Hitting women is acceptable as hitting men. if you would hit a man then you should also hit a woman. I hate this notion how hitting women is bad.

    If a woman feels capable fo hitting a man she should be prepared to be hit back. In this society we have an outbreak of women being violent to men basedon the notion they cannot be hit back.

    I woudl hit a woman if she deserved it and every other man should aswell.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C-Xj3N-IYbU
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    The Times worded it as teaching children about "healthy, non-violent relationships"... but then the Tabloids will always use emotive, negative wording to get attention.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Boys should learn as young as possible that are two genders in this world: females and uneducated, wife-beating, smelly, good-for-nuthin rapists.

    The curriculum certainly shouldn't try to encourage respect, empathy and understanding between all genders, races, cultures, classes and sexualities.

    Victimising one group and demonising another is bound to solve the issue!

    Sarcasm aside, this is probably just the Daily Mail taking some benign point in a report and blowing it ridiculously out of proportion.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by katierattray)
    what do you expect its the daily mail. Also they reported that using social networking may cause someone to commit suicide. I think its a good thing to teach children about.
    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24652422/ - Using social networking to bully someone. The kid committed suicide.
    Getting back on track, I think they shouldn't teach them anything like this, let kids be kids. If they're going to teach this teach them to older kid such as 10+ year olds and even then don't make it gender specific.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Harriet Harmen? RAARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGSH HHHHHH
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by Seven_Three)
    I think the majourity of people don't. But they are ethier too disengagued from the political system to do anything, or they are apathetic beacuse they feel they can't. I don't see why the government doesn't leave issues like this up to parents and teachers.
    I don't know if I'm a majority but I'd be quite happy to have my (future nonexistent hypothetical) children given a positive image of gay and transgender people. If you believe those things are wrong, it's up to you to teach your children that. Times have changed.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    As usual, my beloved Daily Mail is misunderstood The article is only saying that children don't need to be exposed to these issues so young. Thats the "controversy" its referring to, not the actual wife-beating. Its up to parents to teach their kids basic rights and wrongs, not the schools.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Why are people being taught what should be inherent. For once the Daily Mail is right in criticising this. They are simply adding more useless lessons to a n already failing system. It seems schools are trying to overtake the role of parents to compensate for bad parenting
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    They should give girls lessons on not being whiny nagging slut bags, then they wouldn't need to give this lesson.

    Bit silly teaching this crap to 5 yr olds, should be a lesson on not doing violence too anyone.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sadie-kiki)
    I think the controversy is about bothering the minds of little kids with stuff like that...
    no-one denies that wife-beating is wrong, but seriously, kids grow up quickly enough anyway, can we not just just let them run around and have fun without trying to educate them about the perils of adulthood the whole time?
    if you beat your wifes you become cool.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Well tbf:

    1. At the age of 5, it is so far off and completely irrelevant.

    2. Impressionable boys are taught never to hit a woman, will they be taught that they can in self-defence? Especially as at that age, girls and boys are as strong as each other.

    3. Do you know any male, of an age where he could be in a relationship, who doesn't already know this 'rule'? The people that wifebeat aren't people that don't know it's wrong, it's people who don't care.

    4. It will not mention violence of females against male partners, and so at age 5 boys will be learning that such cases are not as important. This whole thing could further entrench the reasons that so few abused males report the crime.

    5. The time would be much better spent educating over street/playground violence against males. This is the kind of violence that these kids will be most likely to experience either now or soon. How about trying to stop people becoming violent street thugs instead. Seeing as these kids won't be in a position to beat their partner for another decade at least.

    6. You shouldn't tell kids 'never hit a woman'. You should tell them 'never hit anyone' (other than self defence). Specifically talking about woman makes it seem like being violent towards their male peers is more acceptable. This very reason is why boys are almost exclusively targeted by muggers. Educating against violence in general would be time much better spent.

    EDIT:

    7. Too much life crap that should be taught by parents is being stuck into the curriculum, and being taught in an unnatural way. How about teaching kids more actual subject matter, so that syllabi throughout school don't have to keep shrinking, and try to reduce the number of kids entering secondary school without being able to write properly.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not sure how I feel about school time being dedicated to 'life lessons'. I also think that this should be targeted at all people, not just schoolboys. Female-to-male violence does exist, and this needs to be dealt with. There is also a lot of violence in some LGBT relationships and man-to-man violence and abuse is often overlooked as it is 'just a brawl', or 'men being men'. Similarly with female-to-female violence. It's 'kinky' or 'a cat fight'. LGBT violence can be just as bad, if not worse than male-to-female abuse.

    Instead of 'Miss' looking at a bunch of primary school kids and saying "now boys, hitting girls is naughty", we need to establish a more stable and respectful relationship between all people through good parenting, stability at school and incentives in the community to reduce general crime and anti-social behavior. Who listens in 'life class'? Who, of an already aggressive disposition, will think "I was told not to hit girls at school so I won't punch my girlfriend"?

    This is an important lesson but when kids still don't seem to come out of secondary school with reliably good literacy and numeracy, we need to think about what school is for. I don't know if we can rely on families and communities to teach these lessons, but I don't think stuffing it in to a failing and choked curriculum is necessarily the way forwards.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Wiki Support Team
    • PS Reviewer
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Wiki Support Team
    PS Reviewer
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by buck-your-waas)
    As usual, my beloved Daily Mail is misunderstood The article is only saying that children don't need to be exposed to these issues so young. Thats the "controversy" its referring to, not the actual wife-beating. Its up to parents to teach their kids basic rights and wrongs, not the schools.


    That's the problem though, some parents just aren't teaching their kids these things. And what about those experiencing this at home with their mum or dad being beaten by their partner? It's giving them a chance to understand that what's happening isn't acceptable and that it's okay to speak out.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Totally agree with that article .And no where does Harriet Harman mention all the men that are assaulted by their wives and girlfriends. But according to her it doesn't happen.

    Would someone tell harriet harmans husband to have sex with her please as she is obviously very frustrated right now .... I never thought I'd say this but bring back Gordon Brown.

    Harman is the Torys secret weapon.I did hear she is related to Cameron.

    And the Daily Mail is no worse than the BBC for taking opnionated biased viewpoints. It's just the BBC is run by a bunch of marxist, dyke,Gay middleclass, Guardian reading white people. So it really depends what your views are. I gather some here subscribe to the lefty , pro europe, pro obama, feminazi BBC way of thinking so I'm not surprised many here hate the Daily Mail. The Daily Mail is one of if not the most popular newspaper in this country. And it's main readership is women. So put that in your pipes and smoke it.

    I'd just like to add that most boys are taught from a young age never ever to hit a girl. And it develops as we get older to treat women like princess's. You get a minority of men who think different and most men consider them scum. That is why Harmans views are so offensive. Anyone who attacks their partner ina relationship should be punished and I don't see why boys are singled out for special attention.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

1,470

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE results day?
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.