If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1001
|
|||
|
|||
Rant: Over indulgent parents strike again
|
#1002
|
|||
|
|||
Rant: Over indulgent parents strike again
In article , dragonlady wrote:
You are arguing for something, you just don't know what that something is. \ I am arguing that sometimes it is possible to identify behaviors or mannerisms that seem to invite harrassment, and that talented people who can identify those things can also help (some) children modify the way they behave so they are targeted less often. Which cannot be addressed because you cannot describe what those behaviors and mannerisms are. This isn't "giving in" to the bullys, or blaming the victim, or any such crap. Depends on what the behaviors and mannerisms are now doesn't it? Also, since this started wrt school policies, I find solutions that require action of a person who has done nothing wrong, to be unsuitable. And what most people don't understand is that the other person knows exactly what they are doing. They don't want to even have the paint on their new SUV scratched. I call their bluff instead of giving in to the aggression. Instead of compensating for their aggressive behavior. And that's what irritates me from school yard bullies on up. Not only that it is now the victim that is in the wrong for standing up, not only that everyone else should modify their behavior to get along with the bully, but... That this society has simply decided that practically nothing is worth fighting for and standing up for one's self. It's the same thing from the school yard up through world fairs, appeasement and modification of one's own behavior to avoid conflict. I don't think I suggested that standing up for yourself is wrong; That's nice. some of what my son may have learned was how to be more effective when he DID try to stand up for himself. Nor have I suggested appeasement, or conflict avoidance. I have suggested that if there are things a person does (note: not things that they ARE; things that they DO) that seem to increase the liklihood of being targeted, there is absolutely NO downside to helping them identify that behavior and modify it. Like ride a bicycle on the roadway. That's something I do. To avoid conflict I could stop doing it. Since you cannot describe what you are talking about beyond a vague conceptional level, I have to deal with it on the conceptional level. On a conceptional level I find this idea wrong because of the greater consquences. I don't think so . I think I have more faith in humanity than you do, and that your "strong defensive posture" may well do more to increase that behavior than simply walking away would. It very much is going to bring an end to or reduce the behavior because it takes the gain out of it. Giving these people what they want will never do anything but further encourage the behavior. I haven't noticed that folks who get agressive in return have done anything to reduce the amount of nastiness in the world. Again, it's not about being aggressive in turn its about not being pushed around. There's a *HUGE* difference. For instance: Driver B to get ahead tries to cut off driver A assuming driver A will nail the brakes and let him (an intentional act). Driver A responses: A) nail the brakes and let driver B do it. B) continue as if driver B doesn't exist, holding his ground. C) Ram his vehicle into driver B's vehicle. A) is appeasement, B) is holding ones spot, C) is a violent response. I am arguing for B. It's getting ahead by shoving others out of the way. Since it's in poor taste too stand up for one's self these days one has to choose if he wants to be shover or the shoved. I don't like that choice, finding both of those to be the ones in poor taste. I choose not to be the shover nor allow myself to be shoved. Avoiding conflict through appeasement is usually not the right answer when dealing with an aggressive, violent species that will generally only see it as a sign of weakness and want to take more. The only effective way to avoid conflict is to make clear one will not be shoved, one will not give in. This is true from the school yard on up. There is a difference between appeasement and a non-violent response. Nobody is arguing for violent response here. Rather not being affraid of the aggressor who is threatening violent action. It is NOT in poor taste to stand up for oneself. However, I think there IS an option that includes being neither the shover nor the shovee. Not being shoved or shoving is holding one's ground. |
#1003
|
|||
|
|||
Rant: Over indulgent parents strike again
"dragonlady" wrote in message
... Last time I checked, non-familiarity with British slang wasn't cause for considering someone a bad parent. Yeah, but never having watched Monty Python *is*. |
#1004
|
|||
|
|||
Rant: Over indulgent parents strike again
In article ,
dragonlady wrote: I am arguing that sometimes it is possible to identify behaviors or mannerisms that seem to invite harrassment, and that talented people who can identify those things can also help (some) children modify the way they behave so they are targeted less often. I agree with this. And I think it is similar to having a child study martial arts, not only so they will be able to defend himself should that be necessary, but also, and often primarily, to help the child exude an air of self-confidence that will help him be less likely to be bullied in the first place. However, I also think it is a fine line between suggesting changes that are "harmless" and help reduce bullying and suggesting changes that unreasonably ask the victim to change his personality. If a boy is very sensitive and prone to crying readily, getting him to stop that, if it's even possible, would probably reduce his being bullied, but is that a reasonable change to ask? Also, I think that by suggesting that there are ways that one can avoid bullying, it *does* give the subtle message that when you get bullied anyhow, it is your fault. I think a lot of women who are raped feel at least partly to blame, even if people are telling them otherwise, especially if they didn't follow all the rape preventions guidelines often suggested. I suspect the same can happen for kids who are bullied even after being coached in bully-avoidance. I have suggested that if there are things a person does (note: not things that they ARE; things that they DO) that seem to increase the liklihood of being targeted, there is absolutely NO downside to helping them identify that behavior and modify it. I guess that would depend just how important being able to safely do those things is to the person in question. Robyn (mommy to Ryan 9/93 and Matthew 6/96 and Evan 3/01) -- Be the first on your block to own the comprehensive and comprehensible TCP/IP Guide! http://www.tcpipguide.com For a challenging little arithmetic puzzle for kids and adults alike, check out http://cgi.wff-n-proof.com/MSQ-Ind/I-1E.htm |
#1005
|
|||
|
|||
How to stop verbal bullying (was Rant: Over indulgent parents strike again)
dragonlady wrote in message ...
In article , (Gniewko) wrote: Teaching "how to think" without teaching skills and knowledge first is absolutely useless. The US educational system tends to teach "how to think" with absolutely disastrous results. Schools in, for example, Eastern Europe (based on personal experience) and in other parts of the world concentrate much more on skills and knowledge, and their students do much better on all kinds of tests, etc. There is a good reason why so many science graduate students, professors, and Nobel prize winners in the US are immigrants from other parts of the world, who did a lot of their schooling outside of the US. And why kids from other countries who end up in US high schools find school laughably easy. Just to give you a data point: in Poland (where I'm originally from) trigonometry is taught in 8th grade. Physics starts in 6th grade. Chemistry in 7th. Things that everyone learns in physics in 7th grade aren't taught in the US until 10th or 11th grade, and then only to some students. American schools try to teach very young kids "how to think", but without giving them basic knowledge - the substance of what to think about. And that's just a waste of time and doesn't work. If you teach knowledge first, the "how to think" part can be taught more easily later. Also: math, science, and literature teach kids how to think, not show-and-tell. -Gniewko I agree; I'm not suggesting that we NOT teach the skills -- only that adding the "how to think" portion is also important to be fully educated. What good is being able to parrot facts and techniques, if you don't know what to do with them -- or how to live in the world? meh Unfortunately school days (and school years) are limited in length. If you spend time teaching "how to think" (whatever that means), you displace teaching of knowledge and skills, which is infinitely more important. If someone doesn't acquire a solid base of knowledge first, he/she can't even begin learning "how to think". So teaching kids "how to think" early on is completely useless and horribly counter-productive. Also, I don't think that teaching kids "how to think" (as separate from teaching for example math and science) is such an important issue. Smarter kids who have acquired enough knowledge and skills, and did enough math and science problem sets normally figure out how to think on their own, and those that can't figure it out usually can't be taught how to do it anyway. As I noted before, the education of people who as kids lived outside of the US consisted pretty much exclusively of learning facts and skills, but they do very well - better than Americans trained in thinking - when they come to the US. -Gniewko |
#1006
|
|||
|
|||
Rant: Over indulgent parents strike again
"dragonlady" wrote in message
... Yes, it does. It is originally from the word (German, I think, but I'm Nope. It doesn't even sound vaguely German. French in origin. not sure) for the kindling used to start fires. During the witch craze, wood was not considered (by some) to burn well enough to actually kill the witches, so men who had been in jail for committing homosexual acts were tied to the wood, and lit on fire to kill the witches. Pro-Bush rants aside, this is one of stupidest things I've seen on reeky in months! For one thing, why would they need humans as kindling to burn humans? Good question! Well, the sources from which I got this seemed pretty solid at the time. Witches were NOT considered human -- or at least not just human -- that's why they had to be killed. No, they were human and had entered into a contract with Satan-- itself a crime-- and used this illicit power to prosper personally in ways that did harm to others. However, I no longer have those sources at my fingertips, so I checked one online source that I trust; this is from http://www.religioustolerance.org/hom_term.htm There are lots of good etymology websites out there-- a quick Google search turned up a good discussion on one of my favorite sites: Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faggot and another interesting discussion he http://www.wordorigins.org/wordorf.htm#Faggot In short you can see that basically, no one has much of a clue how a term that meant kindling sticks came to be used as a derogatory term for gay men, although there are lots of ideas. The whole burning at the stake thing is stupid-- I know that people weren't routinely burnt at the stake for sodomy in the Middle Ages (it wasn't even particularly punished, for the most part) and the Wikipedia article states that this practice first occured in the 17th Century-- right around the time burning at the stake disappeared altogether from the penal system. IOW, it's incredibly unlikely that this would have been the source of the slang use. So you could be right: it could be apocraphal. However (she said with a slightly evil grin) telling that story -- the one about the witches -- to kids who insist on throwing the word around generally convinces them to stop using it! Why? Do kids have a realistic fear of being burned at the stake in your area? |
#1007
|
|||
|
|||
Rant: Over indulgent parents strike again
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 23:28:27 GMT, "Ice Queen"
wrote: "dragonlady" wrote in message ... Last time I checked, non-familiarity with British slang wasn't cause for considering someone a bad parent. Yeah, but never having watched Monty Python *is*. At this time, a friend shall lose his friend's hammer, and the young shall not know where lieth the things possessed by their fathers, that their fathers put there just the night before, about eight o'clock. A man shall strike his donkey and his nephew's donkey and anyone in the vicinity of his nephew or the donkey. -- Al | '98 FLTRI Brennan | '98 T509 EN owl tuna| '83 GR650 hot mail| '57 6T |
#1009
|
|||
|
|||
How to stop verbal bullying (was Rant: Over indulgent parents strike again)
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 22:03:13 -0600, toto
wrote: In schools, this consists of actively teaching empathy and tolerance. You mean teaching kids that it is normal to be gay, and abnormal to be straight? That tolerance? reading, use books from many cultures, use books that show Yes, it is much better to teach kids about Chinese, Indian and Australian culture than to teach them about George Washington, Lincoln, and Kennedy. Teachers have had those horrible subjects removed from textbooks as they are so unimportant. In math, show the children different ways to solve problems that were developed by various cultures. Now I know why schools are so bad. We are now teaching kids they can do math how they want, regardless of the answer. |
#1010
|
|||
|
|||
How to stop verbal bullying (was Rant: Over indulgent parents strike again)
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | General | 13 | December 10th 03 02:30 AM |
WSJ: How to Give Your Child A Longer Life | Jean B. | General | 0 | December 9th 03 06:10 PM |
Kids should work. | LaVonne Carlson | General | 22 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |
Mom goes AWOL from Iraq - says children need her at home | John Stone | General | 179 | November 18th 03 11:08 PM |