whether or not women are gentle and nurturing towards their children is not an issue of femininity, its an issue of parenting. responsible men should be gentle and nurturing towards their children too.
Revisiting Feminism: INFJ (or other type) perspectives
- Thread starter Thekakapo
- Start date
why is there no visual, active, mass movement of men who identify as traditionally masculine standing up against violence done on women? isnt that part of a masculine role, for men to protect women on the basis that they are bigger and stronger than women? so wouldnt it reinforce the value of the gender roles that gender traditionalists believe in, for masculine men to form a movement to stand up and say "come on guys, violence against women is wrong, stop bashing and raping women." there is a large movement of men congregating in places like reddit who are ready to stand up and say how much false accusations of rape harms mens reputation. wouldnt it be in the interests of these men too, to say "it is clearly in all of our interests to stop raping!" on the basis ONLY of these traditionalist gender values, you can kind of understand why women would get pissed off with men, because they appear to want the power of traditional gender roles, but not the responsibility!!
thank you for the rep, but your response isnt a reasoned argument, its a statement of personal opinion or belief.
Most cases of violence against men probably go unreported because of the shame some men might feel and also because they might think they won't be taken seriously by the police
The article i posted touched on those issues
Last edited:
I think those guys are already being the change they want to see in the world
I don't think a load of masculine men marching down the street with placards saying ''don't bash women'' will dissuade any person who is of that dispostition from bashing a woman in a domestic situation
It could equally be asked in the name of equality: where are the women marching against the domestic abuse against men?
Last edited:
I don't think anyone has argued men shouldn't be gentle and nurturing, but i think dad's often play differently with kids than mums and i think both styles have a certain role to play in a childs development
This has roots in evolution
The men went out in packs to hunt, the women went out to gather.
The male activities were more adrenaline based than the female activites; The female were more social
Even today which teaches their kid to ride a bike? Which teaches their kid to throw a ball? Which will often teach them to drive a car?
Last edited:
of course thats not to say that shame and fear dont have just as powerful an action in preventing women from reporting incidences of rape and violence.
being the change they want to see is obviously not having much of an effect. im sorry if you dont think its a cause that is worthy of demonstration or vocal support say by prominent people in the media, but i believe that some people might.
i think that they would argue that because the problem is heavily gendered, that the more pressing priority is raising awareness of the frequency and severity with which women are attacked. especially since men are not willing to march down the street with them.
i dont think we can really use evolution as a valid reason for behaving in certain ways anymore, because unlike animals we human beings are able to reflect on the reasons for our behaviours.
a parent of either sex is capable of teaching a child those things. and a child of either sex is just as capable of learning those things, and teaching those things to their children too. for example, single mothers do just fine in teaching their sons and daughters how to use the toilet, how to say please and thank you, how to cook a meal or sew a button on, how to put petrol in a car.
two of these skills you have mentioned - riding a bike, driving a car - have nothing to do with sex based evolution. they are very recent modern inventions of humankind and are taught and learned and practiced completely independently of sex based evolution.
i feel like i should defend my mother, who taught me to ride a bike, to throw a ball, and to drive a car.
I think if you plugged a computer into the brains of every man and woman on the planet which was able to calculate the amounts they had been struck by the opposite sex i think you'd probably find that men had been struck by women a hell of a lot more than the figures would suggest
My argument being the argument of true equality: that violence is not acceptable from either gender
I didn't say it wasn't a worthy cause
What i was saying is that the masculine men who are against violence against women are already living that ideal every moment of every day
Concerning the process of performing some sort of visible public demonstration against violence against women i was saying that i don't think it would make any difference to the stats
Lets say that you organised a rally in your town for a particular day. You marched X amount of men down the main street waving placards. Some people would stop and stare, some drivers would toot their horns as a show of agreement, most people in the town would be oblivious and that night the same people who were going to bash their partners would still go on to bash their partners
I just don't think that demos are the way to solve that particular problem
However if such demos were to be held i would hope that in the spirit of true equality that to avoid a double standard there would equally be demos held in support of male victims of domestic abuse
I think that the true extent of violence or abuse of any kind against men is not known
I also think that demos are of limited use as a strategy
Last edited:
They are adrenaline based activities which is why i mentioned them
I'm not saying women can't do these things...i am of course speaking in generalisations with this stuff....but i am suggesting that there are some ingrained behaviours in our species
I also think that men and women are being pitted against each other as part of a strategy of divide and rule
Last edited:
http://frankfurtschool.us/history.htm
[FONT=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica]About the Frankfurt School[/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Who in America today is at work destroying our traditions, our family bonds, our religious beginnings, our reinforcing institutions, indeed, our entire culture? What is it that is changing our American civilization?Dr. Gerald L. Atkinson CDR USN (Ret.) Copyright August 1999[/FONT] Suppose you were to learn that nearly all of the observations made in this series of essays are completely consistent with a 'design' -- that is a concept, a way of thinking, and a process for bringing it about. And suppose one could identify a small core group of people who designed just such a concept and thought through the process of infusing it into a culture. Wouldn't you be interested in at least learning about such a core group? Wouldn't you want to know who they were, what they thought, and how they conjured up a process for bringing their thoughts into action? For Americans with even a smidgeon of curiosity, the answer should be a resounding yes! [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Just such a core group did, indeed, exist. History identifies a small group of German intellectuals who devised concepts, processes, and action plans which conform very closely to what Americans presently observe every day in their culture. Observations, such as those made in this series of essays, can be directly traced to the work of this core group of intellectuals. They were members of the Frankfurt School, formed in Germany in 1923. They were the forebears of what some proclaim as 'cultural Marxism,' a radical social movement that has transformed American culture. It is more commonly known today as 'political correctness.' 'Cultural Marxism' and 'critical theory' are concepts developed by a group of German intellectuals, who, in 1923, founded the Institute of Social Research at Frankfurt University. The Institute, modeled after the Marx-Engels Institute in Moscow, became known as the Frankfurt School [1]. In 1933, when the Nazis came to power in Germany, the members of the Frankfurt School fled to the United States. While here, they migrated to major U.S. universities (Columbia, Princeton, Brandeis, and California at Berkeley). These intellectual Marxists included Herbert Marcuse, who coined the phrase, 'make love, not war,' during the anti-Vietnam War demonstrations. By promoting the dialectic of 'negative' criticism, that is, pointing out the rational contradictions in a society's belief system, the Frankfurt School 'revolutionaries' dreamed of a utopia where their rules governed [2]. "Their Critical Theory had to contain a strongly imaginative, even utopian strain, which transcends the limits of reality." Its tenets would never be subject to experimental evidence. The pure logic of their thoughts would be incontrovertible. As a precursor to today's 'postmodernism' in the intellectual academic community, [3] "...it recognized that disinterested scientific research was impossible in a society in which men were themselves not yet autonomous...the researcher was always part of the social object he was attempting to study." This, of course, is the concept which led to the current fetish for the rewriting of history, and the vogue for our universities' law, English literature, and humanities disciplines -- deconstruction. Critical theory rejected the ideal of Western Civilization in the age of modern science, that is, the verification or falsifying [4] of theory by experimental evidence. Only the superior mind was able to fashion the 'truths' from observation of the evidence. There would be no need to test these hypotheses against everyday experience. The Frankfurt school studied the 'authoritarian personality' which became synonymous with the male, the patriarchal head of the American family. A modern utopia would be constructed by these idealistic intellectuals by 'turning Western civilization' upside down. This utopia would be a product of their imagination, a product not susceptible to criticism on the basis of the examination of evidence. This 'revolution' would be accomplished by fomenting a very quiet, subtle and slowly spreading 'cultural Marxism' which would apply to culture the principles of Karl Marx bolstered by the modern psychological tools of Sigmund Freud. Thus, 'cultural Marxism' became a marriage of Marx and Freud aimed at producing a 'quiet' revolution in the United States of America. This 'quiet' revolution has occurred in America over the past 30 years. While America slept! What is 'cultural Marxism?' Why should it even be considered when the world's vast experiment with the economic theory of Karl Marx has recently gone down to defeat with the disintegration of Soviet communism? Didn't America win the Cold War against the spread of communism? The answer is a resounding 'yes, BUT. We won the 55-year Cold War but, while winning it abroad, we have failed to understand that an intellectual elite has subtly but systematically and surely converted the economic theory of Marx to culture in American society. And they did it while we were busy winning the Cold War abroad. They introduced 'cultural Marxism' into the mainstream of American life over a period of thirty years, while our attention was diverted elsewhere. The vehicle for this introduction was the idealistic Boomer elite, those young middle-class and well-to-do college students who became the vanguard of America's counter-culture revolution of the mid-1960s -- those draft-dodging, pot-smoking, hippies who demonstrated against the Vietnam War and who fomented the destructive (to women) 'women's liberation' movement. These New Totalitarians [5] are now in power as they have come to middle-age and control every public institution in our nation. But that is getting ahead of the story. The cauldron for implementing this witches brew were the elites of the Boomer generation. They are the current 'foot soldiers' of the original Frankfurt School gurus. The counter-culture revolution of the 1960s was set in motion and guided intellectually by the 'cultural Marxists' of the Frankfurt School -- Herbert Marcuse, Eric Fromm, Theodor Adorno, Max Horkheimer, Wilhelm Reich, and others [6,7]. Its influence is now felt in nearly every institution in the United States. The elite Boomers, throwbacks to the dangerous idealist Transcendental generation of the mid-1800s, are the 'agents of change,' who have introduced 'cultural Marxism' into American life. William S. Lind relates [8] that 'cultural Marxism' is an ideology with deep roots. It did not begin with the counter-culture revolution in the mid-1960s. Its roots go back at least to the 1920s and the writings of the Italian Communist Antonio Gramsci [9]. These roots, over time, spread to the writings of Herbert Marcuse. Herbert Marcuse was one of the most prominent Frankfurt School promoters of Critical Theory's social revolution among college and university students in the 1960s. It is instructive to review what he has written on the subject: "One can rightfully speak of a cultural revolution, since the protest is directed toward the whole cultural establishment, including the morality of existing society ... there is one thing we can say with complete assurance. The traditional idea of revolution and the traditional strategy of revolution have ended. These ideas are old-fashioned ... what we must undertake is a type of diffuse and dispersed disintegration of the system." [/FONT] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]This sentiment was first expressed by the early 20th century Italian Marxist, Antonio Gramsci. Gramsci, a young communist who died in one of Mussolini's prisons in 1937 at the age of 46, conjured up the notion of a 'quiet' revolution that could be diffused throughout a culture -- over a period of time -- to destroy it from within. He was the first to suggest that the application of psychology to break the traditions, beliefs, morals, and will of a people could be accomplished quietly and without the possibility of resistance. He deduced that "The civilized world had been thoroughly saturated with Christianity for 2,000 years..." and a culture based on this religion could only be captured from within. Gramsci insisted that alliances with non-Communist leftist groups would be essential to Communist victory. In our time, these would include radical feminist groups, extremist environmental organizations, so-called civil rights movements, anti-police associations, internationalist-minded groups, liberal church denominations, and others. Working together, these groups could create a united front working for the destructive transformation of the old Judeo-Christian culture of the West. By winning 'cultural hegemony,' Gramsci pointed out that they could control the deepest wellsprings of human thought -- through the medium of mass psychology. Indeed, men could be made to 'love their servitude.' In terms of the gospel of the Frankfurt School, resistance to 'cultural Marxism' could be completely negated by placing the resister in a psychic 'iron cage.' The tools of mass psychology could be applied to produce this result. The essential nature of Antonio Gramsci's revolutionary strategy is reflected in a 1990s book [10] by the American Boomer author, Charles A. Reich, 'The Greening of America.' "There is a revolution coming. It will not be like revolutions of the past. It will originate with the individual and the culture, and it will change the political structure as its final act. It will not require violence to succeed, and it cannot be successfully resisted by violence. This is the revolution of the New Generation." Of course this New Generation would be Reich's elite Boomer generation. And the mantra for these New Age 'foot soldiers' of the Frankfurt School prophets, would be 'have the courage to change [11].' The Frankfurt School theorized that the 'authoritarian personality' is a product of the patriarchal family. This idea is in turn directly connected to Frederich Engels' 'The Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State,' which promotes matriarchy. Furthermore, it was Karl Marx who wrote about the radical notion of a 'community of women' in the Communist manifesto. And it was Karl Marx who wrote disparagingly about the idea that the family was the basic unit of society in 'The German Ideology' of 1845. 'The Authoritarian personality,' studied by the Frankfurt School in the 1940s and 1950s in America, prepared the way for the subsequent warfare against the masculine gender promoted by Herbert Marcuse and his band of social revolutionaries under the guise of 'women's liberation' and the New Left movement in the 1960s. The evidence that psychological techniques for changing personality is intended to mean emasculation of the American male is provided by Abraham Maslow, founder of Third Force Humanist Psychology and a promoter of the psychotherapeutic classroom, who wrote that, '...the next step in personal evolution is a transcendence of both masculinity and femininity to general humanness.' The Marxist revolutionaries knew exactly what they wanted to do and how to do it. They have succeeded in accomplishing much of their agenda. But how can we claim the 'causes' of the breakdown of our schools, our universities, indeed, the very fiber of our culture were a product of a tiny group of intellectuals who immigrated from Germany in 1933? Given all of the special-interest groups involved in these activities, how can we trace these 'causes' to the Frankfurt school? Look at some of the evidence. As an example, postmodern reconstruction of the history of Western Civilization (now prevalent in our universities) has its roots in the Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School. This rewriting of history by the postmodern scholars in America has only recently come under attack. Keith Windschuttle, in his book, 'Killing of History,' has severely criticized the rush to 'relativism' by historiographers. What is truly astonishing, however, is that 'relativism' has largely supplanted the pursuit of truth as a goal in historical study [12]. George G. Iggers' recently published book, 'Historiography in the Twentieth Century: From Scientific Objectivity to the Postmodern Challenge,' reminds us of the now famous line by Hayden White, a postmodernist, "Historical narratives...are verbal fictions, the contents of which are more invented than found." He quotes other postmodernists, mostly non- historians, who [13] "...reinforce the proposition that truth and reality are primarily authoritarian weapons of our times." We now recognize the source of this postmodern assault -- the cultural Marxists of the Frankfurt School who became experts in criticizing the 'authoritarian personality' in American culture. [/FONT] |
|
|
|
[FONT=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica] [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] Herbert London refutes White's proposition by observing, "...if history is largely invention, who can say with authority that the American Revolution came before the French Revolution?" He observes that evidence has takmen a back seat to inventiveness. He thus cuts right to the chase -- the inventions of postmodernism, which are cutting successive generations of Americans off from their culture and their history, evolved directly from the 'cultural Marxist' scholars of the Frankfurt School. How did this situation come about in America's universities? Gertrude Himmelfarb has observed [14] that it slipped past those traditional academics almost unobserved until it was too late. It occurred so 'quietly' that when they 'looked up,' postmodernism was upon them with a vengeance. "They were surrounded by a tidal wave of faddish multicultural subjects such as radical feminism, deconstructed relativism as history and other courses" which undermine the perpetuation of Western Civilization. Indeed, this tidal wave slipped by just as Antonio Gramsci and the Frankfurt School had envisioned -- a 'quiet' revolution. A revolution that could not be resisted by force. It is of interest to note that the 'sensitivity training' techniques used in our public schools over the past 30 years and which are now employed by the U.S. military to educate the troops about 'sexual harassment' were developed during World War II and thereafter by Kurt Lewin [15] and his proteges. One of them, Abraham Maslow, was a member of the Frankfurt school and the author [16] of 'The Art of Facilitation' which is a manual used during such 'sensitivity' training. Thereby teachers were indoctrinated not to teach but to 'facilitate.' This manual describes the techniques developed by Kurt Lewin and others to change a person's world view via participation in small-group encounter sessions. Teachers were to become amateur group therapists. The classroom became the center of self-examination, therapeutic circles where children (and later on, military [17] personnel) talked about their own subjective feelings. This technique was designed to convince children they were the sole authority in their own lives. It is important to realize that this movement, 'cultural Marxism,' exists, understand where it came from, and what its objectives were -- the complete destruction of Western Civilization in America. That is, these 'cultural Marxists' aimed to destroy, slowly but surely from the bottom up, the entire fabric of American Civilization. By the end of World War II, almost all the original Frankfurt School members had become American citizens. This meant the beginning of a new English-speaking audience for the school. Now the focus was on American forms of authoritarianism. With this shift in subject matter came a subtle change in the center of the Institute's work. In America, authoritarianism appeared in different forms than its European counterpart. Instead of terror or coercion, more gentle forms of enforced conformism had been developed. According to Martin Jay, [18] "Perhaps the most effective of these were to be found in the cultural field. American mass culture thus became one of the central concerns of the Frankfurt School in the 1940s." Since the 1940s, subtle changes appeared in the Frankfurt School's descriptions of their work. For example, the opposite of the 'authoritarian personality' was no longer the 'revolutionary,' as it had been in previous studies aimed at Europeans. In America, it was now the 'democratic' who opposed the 'authoritarian personality.' Thus, their language matched more closely the liberal [19] "...New Deal rather than Marxist or radical.." language. Education for tolerance, rather than praxis for revolutionary change, was the ostensible goal of their research. They were cleverly merging their language with the mainstream of liberal left thought in America while maintaining their 'cultural Marxist' objectives. Toleration had never been an end in itself for the Frankfurt School, and yet the non-authoritarian (utopian) personality, insofar as it was defined, was posited as a person with a non-dogmatic tolerance for diversity [20]. This thought is dominant in today's power elite of the Boomer generation, the New Totalitarians. One of the basic tenets of Critical Theory was the necessity to break down the contemporary family. The Institute scholars preached that [21] "...Even a partial breakdown of parental authority in the family might tend to increase the readiness of a coming generation to accept social change." The 'generation gap' of the 1960s and the 'gender gap' of the 1990s are two aspects of the attempt by the elite Boomers (taking a page out of 'cultural Marxism') to transform American culture into their 'Marxist' utopia. The transformation of American culture envisioned by the 'cultural Marxists' is based on matriarchal theory. That is, they propose transforming American culture into a female-dominated one. This is a direct throwback to Wilhelm Reich, a Frankfurt School member who considered matriarchal theory in psychoanalytic terms. In 1933, he wrote in The Mass Psychology of Fascism that matriarchy was the only genuine family type of 'natural society.' Eric Fromm, another charter member of the Institute, was also one of the most active advocates of matriarchal theory. Fromm was especially taken with the idea that all love and altruistic feelings were ultimately derived from the maternal love necessitated by the extended period of human pregnancy and postnatal care. "Love was thus not dependent on sexuality, as Freud had supposed. In fact, sex was more often tied to hatred and destruction. Masculinity and femininity [22] were not reflections of 'essential' sexual differences, as the romantics had thought. They were derived instead from differences in life functions, which were in part socially determined." This dogma was the precedent for today's radical feminist pronouncements appearing in nearly every major newspaper and TV program, including the television newscasts. For these current day radicals, male and female roles result from cultural indoctrination in America -- an indoctrination carried out by the male patriarchy to the detriment of women. Nature plays no role in this matter. But in terms of destruction and disintegration, Critical Theory absorbed by the 'change agents' and other social revolutionaries has led them to declare their intent to restructure America. As they proclaim, this means their activities have been directed toward the disintegration of the traditional white male power structure. As anyone with eyes to view present-day television and motion pictures can confirm, this has been largely achieved. In other words, Critical Theory, as applied mass psychology, brought forth a 'quiet' psychic revolution which facilitated an actual physical revolution that has become visible everywhere in the United States of America. It was the destructive criticism of the primary elements of American culture that inspired the 1960s counter-culture revolution. As the name implies, this false 'spiritual awakening' by the idealist Boomers in their coming-of-age years was an effort to transform the prevailing culture into an inverted or opposite kind of culture that is a necessary prelude to social revolution. Now that these elite Boomers are in positions of power in the United States, they are completing their work of destroying every institution that has been built up over 200 years of American history. Their aim is to destroy any vestige of the Anglo-American path [23] taken by Western Civilization in forming the unique American culture. Most Americans do not yet realize that they are being led by social revolutionaries who think in terms of the destruction of the existing social order in order to create a new social order in the world. These revolutionaries are the New Age elite Boomers, the New Totalitarians [24]. They now control every public institution in the United States of America. Their 'quiet' revolution, beginning with the counter-culture revolution of their youth, is nearly complete. It was based on the intellectual foundation of the 'cultural Marxists' of the Frankfurt School. Its completion depends on keeping the American male in his psychic 'iron cage.' The confluence of radical feminism and 'cultural Marxism' within the span of a single generation, that of the elite Boomers (possibly the most dangerous [25] generation in America's history), has imposed this yoke on the American male. It remains to be seen whether or not he will continue his 'voluntary submission' to a future of slavery in a new American matriarchy, the precursor to a state of complete anarchy. If we allow this subversion of American values and interests to continue, we will (in future generations) lose all that our ancestors suffered and died for. We are forewarned. A reading of history -- it is all in mainstream historical accounts -- tells us that we are about to lose the most precious thing we have -- our individual freedoms. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Footnotes: 1) Raehn, Raymond V., "The Historical Roots of 'Political Correctness,'" Free Congress Foundation, Number 44, June 1997. 2) Jay, Martin, "The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research, 1923-1950," pp. 77, University of California Press, 1973. 3) Ibid, pp. 81. 4) Ibid, pp. 82. 5) Atkinson, Gerald L., "The New Totalitarians: Bosnia as a Mirror of America's Future," Atkinson Associates Press, 1996. 6) Jay, Martin, "The Dialectical Imagination: A History of the Frankfurt School and the Institute of Social Research, 1923-1950," University of California Press, 1973. 7) Wiggershaus, Rolf, "The Frankfurt School: Its History, Theories, and Political Significance," The MIT Press, 1994. 8) Lind, William S., "What is 'Political Correctness?," Essays on our Times, Free Congress Foundation, Number 43, March 1997. 9) Ibid. 10) Reich, Charles A., "The Greening of America," Crown Trade Paperbacks, 1995. 11) A phrase commonly heard during the 1992 Presidential campaign. 12) London, Herbert, "Discipline of history under assault," The Washington Times, 26 October 1997. 13) Ibid. 14) Himmelfarb, Gertrude, Panel on 'Academic Reform: Internal Sources,' National Association of Scholars, NAS Sixth General Conference, 3-5 May 1996. 15) Marrow, Alfred Jay, "The Practical Theorist: The Life and Work of Kurt Lewin," Teachers College Press, new York, 1977. Kurt Lewin was a primary figure in the wartime research that was later translated into the techniques used today in 'sensitivity training.' 16) Raehn, Raymond V., "Critical Theory: A Special Research Report, 1 April 1996. 17) Editorial, "The crying of the admirals," The Washington Times, 3 November 1995. The U.S. Naval Academy has added female 'role models' to the faculty. In August 1994, the Academy placed a new emphasis on conflict resolution and consciousness-raising. "As 'Lean On Me' started playing, Master Chief Liz Johns gave the plebes her final orders: stand in a circle, sway to the music, sing along, and hug. From the circle came the sharp sniffle of sobs. The future admirals of America were crying." 18) Ibid, Jay, Martin, pp. 172. 19) Ibid, Jay, Martin, pp. 227. 20) Ibid, Jay, Martin, pp. 248. 21) Ibid, Jay, Martin, pp. 135. 22) Ibid, Jay, Martin, pp. 95. 23) Vazsonyi, Balint, "America's Thirty Years War: Who is Winning?," Regnery, 1998. 24) Ibid, Atkinson, Gerald L. 25) Strauss, William and Howe, Neil, "Generations: The History of America's Future -- 1584 to 2069," pp. 382, William Morrow & Company, 1991. "We can foresee a full range of possible outcomes, from stirring achievement to apocalyptic tragedy...Boomers can best serve civilization by restraining themselves (or by letting themselves be restrained by others) until their twilight years, when their spiritual energy would find expression not in midlife leadership [for which they are not equipped], but in elder stewardship."[/FONT] |
| |
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-22202694
[h=1]Gove urges longer days and shorter holidays for pupils[/h] By Judith Burns BBC News education reporter
Pupils will learn better if they spend more time at school argues Michael Gove
Continue reading the main story [h=2]Related Stories[/h]
Pupils in England should spend more hours at school each day and have shorter holidays, the Education Secretary Michael Gove has argued.
In the most successful East Asian education systems, "school days are longer, school holidays are shorter", Mr Gove told an education conference.
He added that current school terms were designed for "an agricultural economy".
The headteachers' union ASCL said quality of learning was more important than hours spent in the classroom.
Speaking at an education conference in London, Mr Gove said: "It is already the case that some of the best schools in the country recognise the need to change the structure of the school term.
"It's also the case that some of the best schools in the country recognise that we need to have a longer school day as well."
'Tattie holiday' He argued that a longer school day would also be more family-friendly and "consistent with the pressures of a modern society".
"I remember half term in October when I was at school in Aberdeen was called the tattie holiday, the period when kids would go to the fields to pick potatoes.
"It was also at a time when the majority of mums stayed home. That world no longer exists, and we can't afford to have an education system that was essentially, set in the 19th Century."
Mr Gove added that a longer school day was the norm in East Asian nations.
"If you look at the length of the school day in England, the length of the summer holiday, and we compare it to the extra tuition and support that children are receiving elsewhere, then we are fighting or actually running in this global race in a way that ensures that we start with a significant handicap."
Mr Gove said that some academies (state schools outside local authority control), were already running longer school days while others had changed the structure of their school terms.
Tea at school Examples of longer hours and terms from the Department for Education include the David Young Community Academy in Leeds which operates a seven-term year starting in June. The basic pattern is a maximum of six weeks at school followed by a maximum of four weeks holiday.
In Hillingdon, Harefield Academy has a number of day boarders who are talented athletes. They arrive very early at school and sometimes don't go home until seven or eight at night. In the evenings they have their tea at school before catching up with homework and extra sport training.
Changes brought in by the government in 2011 also allow local authority schools to extend their school day. However schools are expected to consult and to take account of the views of all interested parties before they implement any changes to the school day.
Last year Nottingham City Council abandoned plans for a five-term school year after some teaching unions and parents said it was disruptive, particularly to families and staff members with children at schools outside the Nottingham area with traditional terms.
Brian Lightman of the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) said: "Some schools are introducing innovative changes to the school day and term and it will be interesting to see what effect these have in the longer term on achievement."
He warned that changes should be based on sound, researched evidence, "not on anecdotes from other countries with vastly different cultures and attitudes to education".
Christine Blower of the National Union of Teachers said: "Teachers and pupils already spend longer hours in the classroom than most countries and also have some of the shortest summer holidays."
Mary Bousted of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers accused Mr Gove of point-scoring and said: "It is as if he is in a sixth form debate rather than a government minister.
"Despite official figures showing that the average teacher works more than 11 hours of unpaid overtime each week, despite most teachers having to prepare and mark work in the evening and at weekends and despite many teachers voluntarily coming in during school holidays because they care about the future of their pupils, the Secretary of State says that schools should be open longer."
[h=1]Gove urges longer days and shorter holidays for pupils[/h] By Judith Burns BBC News education reporter
Continue reading the main story [h=2]Related Stories[/h]
Pupils in England should spend more hours at school each day and have shorter holidays, the Education Secretary Michael Gove has argued.
In the most successful East Asian education systems, "school days are longer, school holidays are shorter", Mr Gove told an education conference.
He added that current school terms were designed for "an agricultural economy".
The headteachers' union ASCL said quality of learning was more important than hours spent in the classroom.
Speaking at an education conference in London, Mr Gove said: "It is already the case that some of the best schools in the country recognise the need to change the structure of the school term.
"It's also the case that some of the best schools in the country recognise that we need to have a longer school day as well."
'Tattie holiday' He argued that a longer school day would also be more family-friendly and "consistent with the pressures of a modern society".
"I remember half term in October when I was at school in Aberdeen was called the tattie holiday, the period when kids would go to the fields to pick potatoes.
"It was also at a time when the majority of mums stayed home. That world no longer exists, and we can't afford to have an education system that was essentially, set in the 19th Century."
Mr Gove added that a longer school day was the norm in East Asian nations.
"If you look at the length of the school day in England, the length of the summer holiday, and we compare it to the extra tuition and support that children are receiving elsewhere, then we are fighting or actually running in this global race in a way that ensures that we start with a significant handicap."
Mr Gove said that some academies (state schools outside local authority control), were already running longer school days while others had changed the structure of their school terms.
Tea at school Examples of longer hours and terms from the Department for Education include the David Young Community Academy in Leeds which operates a seven-term year starting in June. The basic pattern is a maximum of six weeks at school followed by a maximum of four weeks holiday.
In Hillingdon, Harefield Academy has a number of day boarders who are talented athletes. They arrive very early at school and sometimes don't go home until seven or eight at night. In the evenings they have their tea at school before catching up with homework and extra sport training.
Changes brought in by the government in 2011 also allow local authority schools to extend their school day. However schools are expected to consult and to take account of the views of all interested parties before they implement any changes to the school day.
Last year Nottingham City Council abandoned plans for a five-term school year after some teaching unions and parents said it was disruptive, particularly to families and staff members with children at schools outside the Nottingham area with traditional terms.
Brian Lightman of the Association of School and College Leaders (ASCL) said: "Some schools are introducing innovative changes to the school day and term and it will be interesting to see what effect these have in the longer term on achievement."
He warned that changes should be based on sound, researched evidence, "not on anecdotes from other countries with vastly different cultures and attitudes to education".
Christine Blower of the National Union of Teachers said: "Teachers and pupils already spend longer hours in the classroom than most countries and also have some of the shortest summer holidays."
Mary Bousted of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers accused Mr Gove of point-scoring and said: "It is as if he is in a sixth form debate rather than a government minister.
"Despite official figures showing that the average teacher works more than 11 hours of unpaid overtime each week, despite most teachers having to prepare and mark work in the evening and at weekends and despite many teachers voluntarily coming in during school holidays because they care about the future of their pupils, the Secretary of State says that schools should be open longer."
Firstly, I really enjoyed reading your posts @miur, you posted very provoking questions. However, I think the issue with this particular question is that it assumes that women can be generalized. Some women might idealistically want a man who cooks them waffles, because they saw their parents doing that, and associated it with love :b . But on a serious note, a lot of people, not just women, don't know exactly what kind of person they want until they find this person (people?) and they further have complicated motives and desires that can't exactly be summarized or deduced by the gender they identify as.
Though, perhaps some people could make the argument that physchologically healthy people in general want someone who will help them grow and allow them to have independence? Again, hard to say? In any case, I don't agree that all women really want anything: all women can't be put in a category because they're all quite different from each other.
Also, along the same vien, I was asked by a man a while ago why all women wanted "attractive, intelligent, rich, and powerful men." He was setting up for the argument that this was an unrealistic desire and that women shouldn't do this. In response to this, I would say, many people really have no idea what they want, so they look for cultural ideals to give them clues.
However, when it comes to "choosing a partner," things get a lot more complicated. There is initial attraction as well as long-term compatability. For example I've been attracted to people for a variety of reasons; once it was because the guy had a huge smile that went all the way to his eyes, and when he smiled, my stomach just dropped. However, it wasn't until several months later, when we had gotten along really well, that I felt like I had deeper feelings enough to be in a serious relationship. The point is, for some people (again, not all women or even men) it comes down to proven compatibility over-time.
Sure i don't disagree with any of that
I also want to make it very clear that i support womens rights
I also want to make it very clear that i think everyone is different and that everyone should be able to live how they want and to express themselves how they want as long as they aren't hurting anyone else
What i want to do however is point out some other aspects to this whole issue
So one area discussed was violence against women. I want to be very clear that i am against violence against women...but i am also EQUALLY against violence against men
If we truely believe in equality then we must protect both sexes because that is what 'equality' means
Its like the freedom of speech issue. Some people seem to get confused about that one. I remember once american jewish intellectual Noam Chomsky once incurred the wrath of the zionist Anti-Defamation League for saying that a holocaust revisionist should be allowed to speak.
The ADL and its supporters said the guy should not be allowed to speak or to enter certain countries and they branded the holocaust revisionist an 'anti-semite' before he even had a chance to speak and they branded Chomsky (who is jewish) an anti-semite or a 'self hating jew' for saying that the other guy had a right to speak
Chomsky was clear that he didn't necessarily agree with what the other guy was saying but he still believed that the other guy had a right to have his say because that is what freedom of speech means
Freedom of speech does not mean that only the people that certain people agree with should get to speak....it means that EVERYONE should get to speak and chomksy knows that and stood by that ideal
EQUALITY doens't mean protections just for women it means protections for women AND men....people need to keep that in mind when they are talking about 'equality'
have you heard in the mainstream media about how the sperm counts of men are going down:http://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2012/dec/05/sperm-count-fall-is-it-real
Now there are reasons for this. men are being exposed to substances that reduce their fertility
In that youtube clip i posted above about the battle of the sexes there was a segment about how a chemical called 'Bisphenol A' (BPA) is used in food and drink containers which feminises men: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bisphenol_A
BPA is commonly found, as it said, in babies milk bottles. This is done deliberately in order to have an affect on men
There is an agenda to change our society and certain groups for example: the frankfurt school, the fabian society, the tavistock institute, the london school of economics and many others are playing a part in that process and if people want to understand the whole feminism movement and the other changes in our society then it is necessary to understand what the agenda is behind them all, who is doing it and why
I'll go into that in more detail in my next post
Last edited:
I think violence against men should be under the purview of feminism, actually. Since feminism, as [MENTION=9809]La Sagna[/MENTION] pointed out in an earlier post, by definition is meant to grapple with equality for both genders. Actually, the concept of some women abusing men and getting in trouble less for it (because of views that women are weak and men should be strong enough to defend themselves) is sickening. It is extremely sexist, in the exact same way that argues that women should not "flaunt" their bodies in a way that draws attention, otherwise they invite violence.
Well, the fact that it is sexist is one thing, but it is deeply unfair to these male victims, who often get mocked by both genders for their emotionally scarring experience. I do think this is a very important topic to address and I think it should be brought to the forefront of public attention.
Can you think of any solutions? Any steps people could take? The only things I can think of is raising awareness until enough people understand how wrong it is that these male victims aren't taken care of, or protected by the system, or validated for their terrible experiences.
[MENTION=1871]muir[/MENTION]
I abhor any type of violence but domestic violence is particularly insidious, whoever does it whoever. I do believe though that the problems inherent in female against male domestic violence are different than the ones that are contained in male against female domestic violence.
I have a direct experience trying to help a man who was a victim of domestic abuse. He was charged with assaulting his wife when the truth was that he was simply defending himself as she was trying to choke him. He lived with us for a number of months while his case was going through the system and he was not allowed to go home because she was there. He's a caring, mild-mannered man who works in a very macho male-dominated field and I can tell you that he had a lot of support from the other men to leave her and I tried to help him also with self-esteem issues and trying to help him to look at the situation objectively. She put him through hell and even tried to set him up to be caught in too close proximity to her by following him and calling the police on him. He ended up having to go to anger-managed and alcohol treatment (he does have a problem with alcohol). He went right back to her after the court stuff was all over and he is still living with her. The situation has been frustrating for us because now he's too embarassed to even speak to us because he knows that we didn't think he should go back with her.
I think this story demonstrates what often happens in cases where the man is being physically abused by the woman, he usually ends up the one being charged. He could have had her charged but he chose not to. You could see the imprint of her fingers on his neck from her choking. I can tell you though that he received an awful lot of support, even from the very 'macho' men he works with but he made his decision to stay with her.
I think the difference is that men are generally much stronger than women. So, even though I think he is crazy to stay with her and he has put himself in a situation where he could end up in a mess again I do not fear for his safety and life as much as I would if he was a woman being physically abused by a man. I do worry about his safety, but not as much, because he is much stronger than she is.
I also think that in many cases the stigma for men is a self-stigma because they don't want to see the situation for what it really is.
You have stated that you believe that there is a biological difference between men and women. In that case, you have to admit that the vast majority of violence is committed by men, not just violence against women but violence against other men as well, or violence against themselves in the form of violent suicide. There really is no denying the numbers on that one. That is why domestic violence committed by men against women receives more attention, it is definitely more common and it is more often deadly. So, although I completely agree that adressing female against male violence is also important I do not believe that the impact of that is nearly as great or detrimental to society as domestic violence of men against women, and children of course.
I abhor any type of violence but domestic violence is particularly insidious, whoever does it whoever. I do believe though that the problems inherent in female against male domestic violence are different than the ones that are contained in male against female domestic violence.
I have a direct experience trying to help a man who was a victim of domestic abuse. He was charged with assaulting his wife when the truth was that he was simply defending himself as she was trying to choke him. He lived with us for a number of months while his case was going through the system and he was not allowed to go home because she was there. He's a caring, mild-mannered man who works in a very macho male-dominated field and I can tell you that he had a lot of support from the other men to leave her and I tried to help him also with self-esteem issues and trying to help him to look at the situation objectively. She put him through hell and even tried to set him up to be caught in too close proximity to her by following him and calling the police on him. He ended up having to go to anger-managed and alcohol treatment (he does have a problem with alcohol). He went right back to her after the court stuff was all over and he is still living with her. The situation has been frustrating for us because now he's too embarassed to even speak to us because he knows that we didn't think he should go back with her.
I think this story demonstrates what often happens in cases where the man is being physically abused by the woman, he usually ends up the one being charged. He could have had her charged but he chose not to. You could see the imprint of her fingers on his neck from her choking. I can tell you though that he received an awful lot of support, even from the very 'macho' men he works with but he made his decision to stay with her.
I think the difference is that men are generally much stronger than women. So, even though I think he is crazy to stay with her and he has put himself in a situation where he could end up in a mess again I do not fear for his safety and life as much as I would if he was a woman being physically abused by a man. I do worry about his safety, but not as much, because he is much stronger than she is.
I also think that in many cases the stigma for men is a self-stigma because they don't want to see the situation for what it really is.
You have stated that you believe that there is a biological difference between men and women. In that case, you have to admit that the vast majority of violence is committed by men, not just violence against women but violence against other men as well, or violence against themselves in the form of violent suicide. There really is no denying the numbers on that one. That is why domestic violence committed by men against women receives more attention, it is definitely more common and it is more often deadly. So, although I completely agree that adressing female against male violence is also important I do not believe that the impact of that is nearly as great or detrimental to society as domestic violence of men against women, and children of course.
This is essentially what feminism has become. Because it is so expansive, it addresses so many issues outside and above equality for women, and has lost the premise of what it is really all about...a gender issue.
I would rather lump myself as a humanist - equality for all - but recognize feminism as a lens within that perspective that disempowers a group of individuals. Just like I am a humanist that believes in environmental justice, racial equality, against agism...the list goes on.
I think a lot of the issues of not wanting to identify with feminism is because of what it has become- not what is. It's been so manipulated and dragged down, exploited, the list goes on - black colonialism is essentially feminism, but they don't want to be associated with it because of the implications it draws.
Would you tell a black colonialist - "No! You're a feminist!"?
I think it's a bit foolish not to recognize the stigma that feminism has now- and that if we truly want to move for equality for all, we might do better repacking it.
