View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
Post subject: | |
|
Wokko wrote: | Sounds like more progressive indoctrination to me. |
In which century was it a "progressive" cause not to punch your partner? |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
Pies4shaw wrote: | That's probably just another form of religious indoctrination.
Do kids actually need to be taught that when they grow up they shouldn't punch their partners or do we just need to treat it much more seriously when they do?
It strikes me that it's an exercise in deflection, just like the royal commission on the same subject. |
That is a bit weird. But handled well, in a broader 'relationship ethics' discussion, it could have its benefits. Otherwise, how many times and in how many ways can you say "don't hit your partner/kids/siblings"?
Let's face it, a lot of politically-imposed 'education' is just pure indoctrination. "Don't do drugs", anyone? But at least drugs and domestic violence are issues with real-world relevance, unlike Fred Nile's imaginary friend. _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Culprit
Joined: 06 Feb 2003 Location: Port Melbourne
|
Post subject: | |
|
About time, stopping education to a majority whilst feeding fairy tales to a minority during class time was ridiculous. I wonder how Big Ears and his Paid Propaganda Chaplains will cope? If you want your children being fed rubbish, send them to a religious school that promotes your twisted rubbish. |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
Post subject: | |
|
David wrote: | Pies4shaw wrote: | That's probably just another form of religious indoctrination.
Do kids actually need to be taught that when they grow up they shouldn't punch their partners or do we just need to treat it much more seriously when they do?
It strikes me that it's an exercise in deflection, just like the royal commission on the same subject. |
That is a bit weird. But handled well, in a broader 'relationship ethics' discussion, it could have its benefits. Otherwise, how many times and in how many ways can you say "don't hit your partner/kids/siblings"?
Let's face it, a lot of politically-imposed 'education' is just pure indoctrination. "Don't do drugs", anyone? But at least drugs and domestic violence are issues with real-world relevance, unlike Fred Nile's imaginary friend. |
Religious education was always couched in terms of 'broad ethichs education' but in reality was nothing more than proselytising and indoctrination. Anyone who thinks a 'subject' that includes anti gender stereotyping is anything other than Womens studies lite has rocks in their head. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
^ But that's entirely a question of how it's (and what is) taught. I haven't seen any specifics so far. "Women's studies lite" might not be such a bad thing. _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006 Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
Post subject: | |
|
Given that 0.01% of the school body will become geographers, why teach geography?
Given that 0.1% of the school body will become physicists, why teach physics?
Given that 20% of women will become victims of domestic violence, why teach respect and family safety?
Given that 50% of the school body will become women, why teach women's studies? _________________ �Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
Post subject: | |
|
Because teaching young boys that they're inherently violent and teaching young girls that they're inherently victims is evil and £$%$ed up. This shit is bad enough in university without brainwashing little kids too. |
|
|
|
|
Dangles
Balmey Army
Joined: 14 May 2015
|
Post subject: | |
|
What'sinaname wrote: |
I guess Evonne Paddison isn't that important to our backline. |
|
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006 Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
Post subject: | |
|
Wokko wrote: | Because teaching young boys that they're inherently violent and teaching young girls that they're inherently victims is evil and £$%$ed up. |
But they are. This is the simple fact.
(I am, of course, ignoring that ridiculous "inherently" which you stuck in for no good reason as it is senseless. No-one teaches that.) _________________ �Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
Wokko wrote: | Because teaching young boys that they're inherently violent and teaching young girls that they're inherently victims is evil and £$%$ed up. This shit is bad enough in university without brainwashing little kids too. |
As someone who's been at university on and off for 8 years, I can't recall ever being taught that males are violent and females are victims.
Admittedly, I have given the student unions a wide berth.
Seriously, though, what makes you think that this will be the way the subject will be taught at schools? Are you so sure that these classes won't also deal with domestic violence in same-sex relationships or female-on-male violence?
It seems you're jumping to a lot of conclusions about a program that, as far as I can tell, is pretty new and still under development. _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005 Location: somewhere
|
Post subject: | |
|
The points on page 15. No. 2 are excellent! If they can gets those drummed into kids, life would be a lot brighter!
I had a skim read through, I like it. I can see some people getting upset. Certainly men with an unhealthy attitude to the position of women in society, (I just can't see my year 11 biology teacher, teaching it!) and also, anyone with strict religious beliefs. (The ones upset now over gay rights, and gender assignment issues). So what? At what point should religious or customs that leave other people's preferences or choices, by the way side, be respected? _________________ You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
I mostly agree, TP - the material has been both sensibly and sensitively put together, and one could hardly argue that this isn't stuff students should be learning. I also don't believe that it will make boys feel like lesser people (or inherent perpetrators) because of the gender they belong to. Neither will it teach girls to feel like victims (at least, any more than they actually are; let's not forget that girls are particularly susceptible to sexual assault and sexual harassment). I would not be upset in the least if my son or daughter were taught this class.
The one area of concern I share with Wokko is that the curriculum does very much follow the dominant cultural discourse on domestic violence - that it is something only suffered by women at the hands of men, or men at the hands of men, or women perhaps at the hands of women.
When men are victimised, it's usually presented in the context of homophobia or failing to live up to gender norms. The material does seem to overlook the fact that female-on-male domestic violence is a real phenomenon, and probably much more prevalent than many of us would think. Other issues often brought up by the "men's rights" movement, like emotional abuse, would probably also have been worth raising.
To my eye, the curriculum doesn't explicitly reference any of this stuff (though its partially student-led structure suggests that male students are able and encouraged to raise their own personal experiences of victimisation and have them discussed openly). Given the huge double standard that still exists in the way male and female victims of violence are treated in our society, I would have thought a high school gender studies course - for, that's more or less what this is - could have done more to address this topic.
It's only natural, however, that this program would reflect the dominant discourse. In general, I think students will be a lot better off for the addition of this subject - particularly in light of what it's replacing. _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Dangles
Balmey Army
Joined: 14 May 2015
|
Post subject: | |
|
"Media Release
21 August 2015
Greens welcome ethics and respectful relationships education in schools but changes to religious instruction don’t go far enough The Greens welcome the announcement today of the introduction of respectful relationships education into the curriculum next year to help students build healthy relationships and prevent family violence, Greens spokesperson on Education, Sue Pennicuik said today.
“Australian of the Year, Rosie Batty has been calling for education from pre-school onwards about respectful relationships and an interim report of the Senate Inquiry into Domestic Violence, established with tri-partisan support by Greens Senator Larissa Waters, recommended that education on respectful relationships be part of the national curriculum,” Ms Pennicuik said.
The government has also announced that it will introduce ethics and world histories and cultures education into the curriculum and move Special Religious Education (SRI) to 'lunchtimes or before or after school'.
"While the removal of SRI from formal class teaching hours is certainly a step forward, it doesn't go far enough. SRI should be removed from government schools completely," Ms Pennicuik said.
“The Greens have been campaigning for years to replace SRI in Government schools with ethics and comparative religion studies delivered by qualified teachers, not religious volunteers.
"I am particularly concerned about students doing SRI at lunchtime. Children need their lunch break for rest and recreation and to spend with their friends, not to be cooped up in the class room doing SRI.
“It seems the government is still pandering to Access Ministries, which is the largest provider of SRI, and receives millions of dollars of public money to send its volunteers into schools using materials that any person would regard as clearly proselytising, which is supposedly not allowed.
"In my view, neither Access Ministries, nor any other religious organisation, should be receiving any public money to spruik its particular religious point of view in government schools," Ms Pennicuik said.
For further comment: Sue Pennicuik – 0409 055 875" |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
No disagreement here. I guess it is only a partial victory, but, you know, baby steps. _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
|