When Being a Boy Hurts
Several readers sent me this story of two thirteen year old boys who were charged with a felony for slapping girls' rear ends at a middle school:
I saw one of the boys talking on Fox News last night about his experience and how he understood that what he did was wrong. There was also mention in this news story that girls were also participating in hitting the other student's rears, but apparently girls can only be represented as victims and never as perpetrator's of harassment.
Not that I am saying they should be. Middle schoolers hitting people's rears and engaging in other juvenile antics is as common as well, middle schoolers, and to criminalize juvenile behavior to the extent that a 13 year old boy is sitting in juvenile detention for five days for common (albeit stupid and offensive) behavior is in itself, criminal.
Update: Mark Steyn has more on this case (Hat Tip: Fred Ray).
Update II: Not related to the above post, but you can check out my column at PJM on why women hook up with serial sperm donors and altruism here.
Two 13-year-olds facing sex abuse charges for slapping the bottoms of girls in a school hallway probably won't do jail time or be required to register as sex offenders, according to Yamhill County, Ore., District Attorney Bradley Berry.
"From our perspective and the perspective of the victims, this was not just horseplay,'' Berry said. "People may disagree, and I understand that.''
But based on his experience in similar cases, he says it's unlikely the boys, if convicted, would be sentenced for the maximum jail time.
Each count carries a maximum one-year sentence. Lawyers for the boys say they also would face mandatory registration as sex offenders.
I saw one of the boys talking on Fox News last night about his experience and how he understood that what he did was wrong. There was also mention in this news story that girls were also participating in hitting the other student's rears, but apparently girls can only be represented as victims and never as perpetrator's of harassment.
Not that I am saying they should be. Middle schoolers hitting people's rears and engaging in other juvenile antics is as common as well, middle schoolers, and to criminalize juvenile behavior to the extent that a 13 year old boy is sitting in juvenile detention for five days for common (albeit stupid and offensive) behavior is in itself, criminal.
Update: Mark Steyn has more on this case (Hat Tip: Fred Ray).
Update II: Not related to the above post, but you can check out my column at PJM on why women hook up with serial sperm donors and altruism here.
posted by Helen at 9:28 AM
150 Comments:
At some point all males will be automatically logged onto the sex offender list at birth.
Which makes the tracking of real sex offenders harder.
The absurbity of this is incomprehensible. The D.A. if full of baloney. Kafka reigns supreme.
As I've stated many times, in observing my daughter, who is entering middle school this year, and her friends, the girls are much more likely to hit, push the boys than vice versa. But girls are always the victims in our popular culture.
In school detention would have sufficed. Plus, more boys learn to distrust the sytem and the people in it, become alienated, etc. Then they'll be talking about why so many boys drop out, don't go to college and such.
Evan makes an excellent point, also.
I read about the story and was shocked as well.
Man, I had a bad date with a large wooden paddle after being caught with other boys in my 6th grade class punching each other below the belt. Maybe I better check the sex offender registries to verify that I am not infamous.
This is probably why we're seeing all the "bad girls" suddenly (Lohan, Spears, Hilton, Richie et. al). The behavior of boys (and men) is controlled more and more tightly, girls seem to be allowed to get away with more.
When I was in college, I saw a girl in a bar at the next table hit her boyfriend in the head with a glass, literally breaking it, out of the clear blue sky. They hadn't even been arguing (not loudly). His head was dripping blood, she cut her finger. The bouncers rushed over to beat the crap out of the guy until everyone said that he had done nothing - then they simply did nothing. A man who had done that would have had the cops called for assault; nothing at all happened to her.
I guess it is completely out of fashion now but we used to have to write essays as part of the punishment for unacceptable behavior back in the school days. It had the virtue of atleast making us think about what was wrong with what we'd done. Between that and the shame factor, because every body in class knew!, we didn't take long to learn to think before acting...well, for teen-agers anyway.
The real point is we were allowed to be kids and be punished as kids rather than underage adults.
Retread
The way to deal with these incidents is to take them VERY VERY seriously.
If the situation at this school has gotten so out of control that criminal charges are necessary, then there's obviously been a deriliction of duty on the part of the faculty and staff. They'll need constant oversight. The Principal and Vice Principal obviously need to be fired for allowing these mass sexual assaults to occur in the hallways. Perhaps they condone assaulting young women, they should be investigated as well.
Why didn't the teachers see this coming, do they condone sexual assault as well, perhaps they're pedophiles - there should be an investigation.
These idiots have sold these two boys up the river because they didn't want to exercise their discretion, they want for someone else to take responsibility.
"When I was in college, I saw a girl in a bar at the next table hit her boyfriend in the head with a glass..."
What's such a head-trip for me is reading feminist blogs, who say stuff like "violence against women is SO deeply ingrained in our society that blah blah blah de blah blah blah"
Yeah? Bull.
If feminists were correct, I should be able to beat-up a woman in public view and no one would try to stop me. As it is- as you yourself have observed- women can commit acts of assault in full view and people will take her side and craft excuses for her.
Any feminist who claims that violence against women is a social norm is inverting the truth a la George Orwell. I don't know how they're able to get away with it, but they do. They can say this ridiculous stuff which is clearly at odds with observable reality- not to mention against reams of data showing women are systematically punished less harshly by the justice system- and everyone seems to nod their heads in agreement "yes, yes, violence against women is a social norm. Very profound. Yes."
You'd think that, at some point, people would sort of NOTICE that the truth is being spun-around 180 degrees; that social-services are offered to violent women whereas violent men are subject to criminal treatment, etc.
TO: Dr. Helen, et al.
RE: We're Talking....
....SERIOUS 'over-criminalization', here, people.
We need to stop this tripe or build enough prisons to hold all the boys.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. Personally, I don't think ever dollar I make, not to forget everyone else, could afford that kind of penal system.
This article should be a parody, it's sad that this is happening.
That's what you get for being male.
Anybody know the Statute of Limitations on butt slapping by 13-year olds in Texas? Hopefully 25 years is enough. The older I get the more felonious I was.
I favor slamdunk's suggestion. A good paddling with a wooden board (with holes in the board if you really want to be harsh), and a short lecture. Since girls were involved in doing some of the activity, they can get paddled and lectured as well.
Tennwriter
"Since girls were involved in doing some of the activity, they can get paddled and lectured as well."
------
That's a sexual harrassment or sexual assault accusation waiting to happen.
I agree -- a good paddling and a lecture... for the district attorney.
If I knew how, I'd register the school administrators and the prosecutor as repeat child predators on every sex offender database in the country.
Girls have more maturity at that age and it is they ,not the boys who should be in trouble.If you want respect you should also give it and show an example,obviously not in this case.If I were one of the boys parents I would be rooting through that school lokking for a boy whose bum had been smacked by a girl .I would then take out a private prosecution.The matter would then be dropped.Nobody in authority would dare punish a girl.
"Girls have more maturity at that age ..."
------
No, they just give a rip at that age about social conventions and, especially, learning the social manipulation games.
Socially awkward little Albert is taking the radio apart because he is curious, instead of putting his napkin in his lap, learning to curtsey and make catty remarks, and learning how to manipulate others.
He will later put that to good use to support his future wife, who will continue to manipulate, pretend that she has manners, and not contribute diddly squat to the world.
Want to see our public schools improve both scholastically and behaviorally?
1. Break up the teachers unions and get rid of tenure.
2. Have the tax money assigned to the child, not the school district.
3. Allow parents the freedom to choose where their child goes to school and not be penalized for it by having to pay taxes plus tuition.
4. Bring back the concept of having to actually learn what is needed to go on to the next grade. No automatic advancement.
5. Bring back the concept of common sense. Political correctness and the liberal Marxist baggage associated with it needs to be kicked to the curb. Our schools need to be places of learning again, not places of indoctrination.
(Solely?) as an intellectual exercise:
Let's presume the D.A. is reasonably smart, as is the principal. So what could they possibly be thinking in doing this?
Well, I suppose this might be a feint on their part, with the real move yet to come: i.e. the principal says he had to call the cops because he feels he has no ability to discipline the kids properly anymore in school and the D.A. backs him up.
That would make the whole exercise a dramatization (that was carried woefully too far, sigh, but people often overestimate irony's profile) of the current state of the schools and of the schools' ability to maintain order. It could easily precede/justify a call for more disciplinary authority for schools.
Is this stage a setup?
Doesn't anyone remember what it's like to be a 13 year old boy? When you were 12, you were part of the he-man woman-haters club, playing with frogs, shooting off bottle rockets. (Add playing video games for the current generation, natch.) Then puberty starts to come around, and your feelings toward girls change in disturbing ways. You want things they way they were, but you also want to interact with girls, and you don't know how.
So you dip their pigtails in the inkwell.
Lacking inkwells and, I guess, pigtails to dip, the boys apparently did what they could. They'll say they understand what they did was wrong, but really, they don't understand what's happening to them. They don't know why they wanted the girls' attention. They resented wanting it. They didn't know how to handle it. So they spanked them. Got their attention, but in a way that 'proved' to each other and their peers that they didn't want them to be their GIRLfriends (horrors) and avoided the awkwardness of possible rejection (after all they weren't really asking for affection). But they can't really parse all that.
It's the adults' job to understand, because they went through it and it was ever thus. But as is too often the case between adults and kids, the adults are just not up to the task, and it's up to the kids to figure it all out as best they can.
Too bad. Because if they could learn how to work it through now, they'd have a shot at not being a truly disfunctional adult. Ah, teach your children.
I won't repeat my comments at the Dinocrat site, which has more links. From one of them:
To Rhonda Pope, mother of Christian Richter, 13, a girl named in the court papers as one of the victims, the charges are justified. "Slapping somebody on the butt is sexual harassment, and it is a crime," she said. "Considering what was going on and that my daughter was offended, it is a crime. And it's not OK."
Would the school district happen to be liable for criminal sexual harassment on its premises? Just askin'...
The authorities' response was (insert epithet of choice), but the discussion at Dinocrat cautions that unwanted touching is a widespread problem and the Oregon incident is not an isolated one.
My, how times have changed. In 6th grade I walked a gauntlet(very slowly, mind you) where I was swatted on the hind parts by every girl in my class. Four of us (all guys) went through the line. We had the highest grades in the class for the whole year. Maybe that was different.
The swats went from a mild tap (eww, cooties) to a heavy handed slap (my girl friend at the time)that actually stung. Average age was 12.
This DA is as bad as Nifong.
Girls' rear ends were slapped during "Slap Butt Day", and these boys ended up isolated from their parents for days and subjected to multiple strip searches (!) . Who had the "sexual harassment" here?
The school administrators who let this go this far should all be fired.
The DA should be disbarred like Nifong.
Hi all,
I worked as a general pediatrician for 3 years. What is most disturbing to me is the increasing abdication of responsibility for students' behavior by parents, who then expect schools to enforce all the discipline and all the rules. Many children arrive at kindergarten having never been made to do anything they didn't want to do in their entire lives, with no sense of routine or security or rhythm. Schools have very few disciplinary means to fall back on--there is no corporal punishment, of course, but things like writing sentences, essays, detentions, staying after school, etc almost always rely on the school having parental back-up and enforcement. When parents don't back up the schools--or worse, deny that their precious children would ever do anything wrong-- and let the children get away with bad behavior, teachers and principals are left with very few ways to enforce discipline. As teachers increasingly face the possibilities of irate parents storming into the classroom demanding to know why their children have been given detention/extra homework/whatever, we will increasingly see the criminalization of normal childhood/adolescent behavior. Why do the school principals call the cops? Because school parents have either so tied their hands with complaints and threats of legal action, or are so dismissive or disengaged, that they feel they have no other choice.
Regarding the bar incident with the girlfriend hitting the guy with a glass.
I was on the receiving end of that, one time.
Right out of college, went to the bar with some co-workers (my age). An all girls lunch club was mentioned. I blurted out that such a club was sexist. Got some flak and apologized. No need to turn the night into a political fight. A few seconds into the next conversation, the girl sitting next to me, smashed my glass into my face as I was drinking.
It bruised my upper lip, and spilled my drink down my shirt. No lasting damage fortunately. Also fortunately, the rest of the table (both male & female) condemned her action.
Had I been actually injured I would have lost no time (after receiving medical attention) filing a police report, restraining order, civil suit, and a attempted to have her removed from our workplace.
There's some local backstory.
Back in 1994 the 40-something wife of the local DA, who worked at the school, was caught in an inappropriate relationship with a 15 year old student. I don't think any sex was proved, but they admitted to kissing, and the kid was picked up for burglary on the woman's house. The school and legal system were very lenient with them and they picked up a sweet deal, which caused some outrage in the community. Everybody was under the impression there was a hush-up and cover-up of the events.
There's a new DA now, but I suspect the new DA still wants to prove he's not like the old DA. So we get the wild over-reaction of this case.
The McMinnville school administration hasn't shown the best judgement in the past. A few years ago some girls at the other middle school in town were strip-searched by police as part of a petty theft incident in gym class.
I'm Anonymous @ 8:34.
A few more comments. Teachers have been stripped of authority and been given more responsibility to care for children who have no respect for others. Of course classrooms and shools are problem zones.
This kind of thing is a consequence of the refusal/inability of schools to enforce any kind of behavior standards. They let things go on and on and on, and then overreaction happens.
It's as if a city spent years refusing to deal with criminal activity in a neighborhood, and then finally called in an airstrike.
Or a homeowner who puts a penny in his fusebox in order to keep some appliance operating, at the price of burning down his house.
Thank heavens I have daughters and not sons!
Strip searches? Is this verified info? Aren't these boys 13 or so?
My son would have been screaming help! rape! at that age because they would have had to have taken his clothes off by force.
Only cops and teachers can see our kids naked, and check for evidence?
What? Were they hiding a third hand somewhere? If my kid were that age, and a junkie, hiding evidence, and I did a strip search, or a stool search in the toilet, I'd get arrested.
If our feminists want to talk about a culture of violence against women, fine. But not Western society.
How about African society? Right now the UN says there is rampant sexual abuse of women by rebel and govt forces in the Congo which goes WAY beyond rape. Rape is the LEAST of the sex crimes being committed against women there.
The widespread violence against women in Muslim society is well documented.
Our feminists and human rights people are completely silent on these issues, while the leftwingers, who have made our schools unmanageable, promote the political ambitions of an African (American) Muslim.
I guess I must be missing something.
While a member of the NH legislature I challenged the Chairman of the NH HHS to justify his approval of zero tolerance policies in schools that led to children being referred to his expensive services rather than face detention of suspension for things like this or just fighting. After the hearing his second in command confided that her own son had been referred because he punched a "bully". She would not repeat the comment in the public hearing.
RobBoyce
"Regarding the bar incident with the girlfriend hitting the guy with a glass.
I was on the receiving end of that, one time."
What's funny - if you talk to men about this, a lot of them have stories like that. And NONE of them ever reported it, pursued it or held the woman accountable in any way.
Strip searches? Is this verified info? Aren't these boys 13 or so?
That is part of the admitting procedure at Oregon's juvenile jail when the boys were admitted and then detained for five days. Strip searches to verify no contraband.
All for participating in "Slap Butt Day".
Two separate incidents at the McMinnville Oregon middle schools:
1. The butt-slapping incident, in which the boys were charged with felonies; and
2. An earlier incident from 1998, in which middle school girls in a gym class were accused of petty theft of some CDs and cash. The police were brought in with the approval of the school vice principal and several girls in the class strip-searched before someone in the school district office got wind of the goings-on, got a clue, and stopped the process. The girls were 12 years old.
http://www.news-star.com/stories/013198/new_search.html
The local DA, Brad Berry, the same one prosecuting the boys, declined to bring any charges in that affair.
Needless to say, some people are questioning the administrative leadership in the schools.
I'm curious if these youngsters would've been charged with a higher crime if they had actually assaulted the girls?
I have a daughter and a grand daughter. And I have also been a teen. I think the powers that be at school and in the DA's office need to be dealt with.
Hal
This is part of the educational learning experience - it will help the boys to prepare for the career world, where they will also be subject to sexual harassment accusations and the like in their corporate existence. The punishment here will also be similar to forced sensitivity training.
Just learn it now boys: Bow your head to the woman, and don't make her mad.
In my high school one of the senior boys grabbed the science teacher in a bear hug from behind while two others unbuckled his pants, pulled them off and ran them up the flagpole. All in fun, naturally. No one got in trouble.
Of course, that was in 1964. I guess things might be different now.
anonymouse@8:45 PM, July 30, 2007 notes:
Teachers have been stripped of authority and been given more responsibility to care for children who have no respect for others. Of course classrooms and shools are problem zones.
That's true. On the other hand, did the teachers and their unions resist the removal of authority, and are they demanding it back?
The school district appears to be passing the buck:
The McMinnville School District issued this statement following renewed public interest in a February 2007 situation at Patton Middle School: (p)Our top priorities are the safety, well-being and education of all students. As soon as school administrators learned about inappropriate student behavior on February 22, 2007, they investigated and suspended students for a total of five days, as prescribed in district policy. Local police, stationed inside the school building, determined that crimes had been committed and made arrests, moving the matter into the control of law enforcement agencies. The school district played no role in the legal decisions that followed. The district has and will continue to emphasize with students the importance of appropriate school behavior.
So I'm supposed to believe that the police chose to inject themselves into a fairly routine disciplinary matter in middle school? I'm skeptical, but if that's the case, McMinnville education and law enforcement are even more messed up than I thought.
I've known a good number of feminists who feel that it's perfectly okay to assault a guy who says something they find offensive, but it is a grave crime for a guy to hit a woman for any reason. Some have even boasted of hitting guys whose opinions they disliked.
"I've known a good number of feminists who feel that it's perfectly okay to assault a guy who says something they find offensive, but it is a grave crime for a guy to hit a woman for any reason. Some have even boasted of hitting guys whose opinions they disliked."
----
Well, as their karmic retribution, they are destined to a life of exclusive interaction with pandering men who have no self respect. I personally don't hit women, but I also don't want to have anything to do with nitwit feminists. Thankfully, I'm self-employed, and I have truly avoided those types.
"I was on the receiving end of that, one time."
Me, too. West Los Angeles.
I said "Hi" to a pretty girl standing next to me at a bar. 3 seconds later her girfriend smashed a beer bottle across my head and started kicking me in the groin - hard - about 5 times.
I'm 6'3. She was 5'3. I outweighed her by at least 100 lbs. I didn't touch her in any way, not even to stop her from kicking me.
Police were called, she claimed I'd assaulted her. I told the truth, and had 26 stitches in my scalp and face and a dozen witnesses to prove it. She was never charged, my lawyer said he was very, very lucky to get the charges dropped against me.
Next time, of course, I'll leave before the police get there.
pst314 and others -
Remember the recent Katie Couric incident?
http://www.drudgereport.com/flash2.htm
Can anyone imagine what would have happened to a male anchor if he had slapped a female co-worker like that?
Anonymous @ 10:29 :
People don't even believe these stories when men tell them. Society is more or less hypnotized by the steady drumbeat of TV and movies nad commercials telling us otherwise.
I absolutely believe you because I saw the same kind of thing in my own life. What is odd is that even people who directly witness things like that will brush it off, or more likely forget it, even seconds later. It just didn't happen because women don't assault men. On TV and in films and on commercials. Even if it does happen, it doesn't matter; men should just shut up and take it.
And men DO respond to the societal training. I once filled out a survey sheet in college about boyfriend/girlfriend violence. I wrote that I had never had it in my relationships, and I believed it. Much later in reading a different news story, for some reason, I thought about that sheet years ago and the fact that my girlfriend at the time had BROKEN MY NOSE in an argument, and I didn't fight back. That didn't even register.
Speaking of double standards: Remember The Vagina Monologues? One of the stories was "The Little Coochie Snorcher That Could", a heart-warming story about how a 30-some lesbian gets a 15-year-old girl drunk and seduces her. It's all about how wonderful it is to "recruit" a young girl into lesbianism. A story about a man doing that sort of thing would rightly be condemned and the author would become a pariah, but lesbian feminists feel that they can do whatever they want...and judging by their (lack of reaction) most liberals agree with them.
Wow! I re-read the piece and better not do that again, as I seem to get more angry each time through it.
The boys and their families have been victimized, especially with:
"Confidential court records and police reports obtained by The Oregonian showed that other Patton students — boys and girls — were also slapping bottoms."
They have been Nifonged!
"Confidential court records and police reports obtained by The Oregonian showed that other Patton students — boys and girls — were also slapping bottoms."
----
Society finds it far worse that boys slap girl's bottoms, even in a context where this is happening on both sides. That's not going to change in the near future.
OF COURSE it's one-sided that the boys get drilled and not the girls. But it's probably good training for life, in which the boys will get drilled in a one-sided way, and not the girls. LOL
Just SEE what happens in society, whether it's fair or not, and then avoid trouble. Otherwise, engage in trouble, try to change society's viewpoint, realize it doesn't work, and serve your time. I vote for getting a grip on what society thinks - no matter how stupid. Girls are the chosen ones, the princesses, the royalty. That's the fact, Jack.
I just wonder where were the parents when this was going on?
(Not what you probably think....)
If I recall correctly, these kids were interrogated by the principal and the cop for hours, and then arrested. They should have had the parents in there, or a lawyer, if they were planning on arresting them.
Dr Helen's husband would know that better than me, but it seems like there's plenty of good stuff right there to make a decent defense attorney's day.
Unfortunaely, this doesn't surprise me at all. I'm a psychologist at a Department of Juvenile Justice facility. Over the past 10 years we've had dozens of teens incarcerated for 45 days as a result of slapping or grabbing girls' butts. Charges are usually, but not always, pled down to an assault charge so the boys don't have to register as a sex offender.
If you check into this I think you would find it is very commonplace. Usually,however, parents prefer to quietly plead the charges down rather than speak out and risk having their son have to register as a sex offender for the rest of his life.
Sounds like it's time for the boys parents to sue the girls parents.
Once the girls are looking at losing their homes to attorney's fees, they may have a change of heart.
"Considering what was going on and that my daughter was offended, it is a crime."
So offending someone is now a crime? This is the logical extension of the "hostile environment" nonsense.
If my daughter had her butt grabbed, I hope she would have slapped the grabber silly then take her suspension like a grown woman.
We would go play golf for a few days.
Trey
I suspect that the school has had a long term problem with inappropriate touching/ grabbing and that these boys got caught in a panic driven effort by the administration to show that they are dealing with the issue.
A few years ago an aquaintance shared her frustration with the treatment her middle school daughter received at school. In between classes, the 8th grade boys lined the halls and slapped/ grabbed at the girls' butts and chests. Boys felt pressured to take part in the ritual- otherwise they would get a repuatation for being gay. Girls didn't have an effective way to defend themselves- fighting back by slapping at the offender was a fast way to get suspended because they had zero tolerance for violence. The ritual went on day after day, and the administration had lots of reasons why there was no one available to monitor the hallways. In this kind of environment, sooner or later there's going to be an explosion.
There's a simple way to prevent such problems- ADULT SUPERVISION. It's amazing how much the mere presence of caring, concerned adults will do to improve behavior. Unfortunately for the kids, we have largely replaced relationships with rules.
I just saw The Holiday last night and I was struck by the fact that when Cameron Diaz punches her boyfriend not once but twice (not slaps but punches) and knocks him down, it is done for laughs or for "woman power". He had cheated on her. Can you imagine a man hitting his cheating girlfriend done for laughs on tv or the movies? Of course not. Woman hitting man = cute or funny or empowering. Man hitting woman = patriarchy and felony.
Our culture has decided that women in America are The Master Race. They're both sugar 'n' spice 'n' everything nice and strong, powerful womyn. It's ladies first and they're going to "kick your ass", too, so step aside Mr. Cockman Opressor. And any man who doesn't bow to those rules is some kind of monster.
these kids will be marked for life, they wont be able to get any jobs, especially not with women around, so what are they to do, go into crime. because there is now resort left open to them.
so they have created criminals..which is so much better, plus they will start to hate women, because it was unfair, and so some of the crimes might be focused on women. self fulfilling prophecy
Annonymous 9:19 PM, July 30, 2007 said: "What's funny - if you talk to men about this, a lot of them have stories like that. And NONE of them ever reported it, pursued it or held the woman accountable in any way."
That's because we do not want to be beaten and jailed. That and worse can easily happen to a male who dares complain of female violence. I'm, sure the feminists are VERY proud. Oh you can point out a few cases where a female was actually arrested, what you will never point out is the pride our society has in condemning the man who has a female arrested.
Until women and dominant men are willing to see males as human beings this will go on and probably get worse. We will have men arrested for daring to breath while being male.
This is what people DEMAND boys be taught:
- you will be punished for things the girls are free to do to you
- you are at fault: PERIOD!
- you can and should be raped and beaten
- the teachers, administrators and police are your enemy
I'm sure the feminists and hardline conservatives are very very proud of themselves: I'll quote a friend "I wonder if they'll cum when these boys suicide?" Not sure if I should quote him here. Anyway, I may well feel as he does, I'm not yet sure. What I am sure of is that until we can make some changes in society so that a male CAN BE SEEN as a human being, we will have more and ever more problems.
No wonder kids think adults are stupid.
Two words:
Privatize education.
Three more words:
All of it.
I like the suggestion made "fund the student, not the school."
I only wish I could take the tax I pay to our local school district (which isn't a bad district) and apply it to the private Catholic school my boys attend.
Heck, I wish I could get a 50% reduction on my school tax since my sons do not and will not the local school.
But oddly, we want the freedom to choose the vendors for our televisions, our lawn mowers, and our autos. But our kids aducation ? Ennnh, we can leave that to the state.
"At some point all males will be automatically logged onto the sex offender list at birth."
And at some point a certain percentage will figure if you're going to get the label, might as well have the fun.
It's like the old story: Some serfs are late showing up for work. One asks what the penalty for that is and is told, "Death". And what's the penalty for revolt? "Death." Well, boys, we're late!
When I was in middle school, a group of boys would routinely surround my backside as I got into my locker.
They began with only snickering at me. But soon that wasn't enough and then they began smacking my ass. The trouble was they ALL looked guilty, but I couldn't verify if all or only one was guilty. And certainly all were at the least guilty of aiding and abetting. From my perspective it was very intimidating to have 8 to 12 boys regularly surround you and snicker and smack your ass.
Naturally, the teachers all considered this a non-issue. Boys will be boys.
This only resulted in a an escalation in the behavior. Rather than smack my ass they started swiping their hands up the crack of my ass or reaching up my skirt. Or yanking at my pants or skirt. Always as a pack, always from behind, always several boys deep so no one could see who actually did it.
And of course, I wasn't the only victim. These boys relied upon intimidating us.
One day I finally had enough and swung around and beamed a number of them with my books. An uninvolved boy nearby piled on and we turned the tables. Unfortunately, He and I got suspended.
Moral is, if you let boys get away with that behavior, especially when they are in pack mentality mode, you may only be exacerbating their behavior.
Although a 5 day stint in the pokey for slapping someone else's bottom in a school yard is steep, the crime is still way wrong. At age 13, adult supervision should not be necessary to have these children behave. Older children should be able to behave for short periods of time on their own. Punishment and parent involvement definitely, but it seems more like a couple of weeks in a very boring detention room and an apology would be appropriate, or a few days of suspension to get the point across. As I have said before in the comments section, as a society, we are at a point where a "no touchies" policy should be strictly implemented in all schools, to keep everyone safe from each other and law suits.
cham --
You contradict yourself. If it's a crime, it involves the legal system by definition and can't be left to the school.
I'm using crime in the figurative sense here, as in the difference between right and wrong.
cham wrote: "At age 13, adult supervision should not be necessary to have these children behave."
Do you know many 13 year olds? I do, and they need supervision, hawk eyed supervision and lots of it.
Trey
"At age 13, adult supervision should not be necessary to have these children behave."
I'll side with Trey on this one. At 13 anytime you have boys an dgirls together they need almost constant adult supervision to keep from getting in more trouble than they need.
we are at a point where a "no touchies" policy should be strictly implemented in all schools, to keep everyone safe from each other and law suits.
We may be at this point and it is a relfection of a sick society. We should fight the illness not give in to it. Appropriate touching is good. We all need hugs.
Yes, the behavior was inappropriate but not as inappropriate as the response.
cham -- I might suggest you use "the act is still way wrong" then.
Crime has a primary meaning and if you don't indicate you're using the least common usage in five usages (Webster's), it's a bit rough to figure out your meaning.
Hmm. The administration and DA's reactions are, of course, absurd and worthy of contempt.
But these boys get no pass from me when it comes to slapping @sses like this. You don't get to treat other people's bodies like that and not face some cringe-inducing consequences. If I was a father of a girl at that school, I would expect this budding problem (and it is only a budding problem, in multiple senses of the word) to be dealt with seriously.
This isn't "boys will be boys" behavior--at least it should not be. These young guys need to be firmly reminded that you do not treat women--or girls--that way. Now or later in life. If we expect little from boys in the way of self-control, the lesson is learned and you will never get the men society will need later.
As a former 6-felony arrest adolescent who went *way* beyond this sort of stuff, I'm pretty familiar with poor behavior in kids. I even have some insight into how to correct it.
Sending these boys to jail was idiotic and counter-productive. But the "eh, no biggie" attitude to what got them there is troubling as, well, even if not nearly as troubling as the DA's Salem Witch antics.
Finally, this struck me as very true: "Moral is, if you let boys get away with that behavior, especially when they are in pack mentality mode, you may only be exacerbating their behavior."
Too true. Anytime I or my delinquent pack did something stupid or wrong, we did it as a group. Kids and teens need adults around all the time, so they can model proper behavior. Adults, for their part, have to demonstrate it and, in return, obtain the kids' respect. That is the deal.
We are really not keeping up our end of the bargain, I think, yet we punish the kids.
To some extent, it is coming back to bite the girls on the butt. Young men, esp. the educated ones, are waiting longer and longer to wed. Instead, they seem to run in male packs, doing male things, like mountain bike, skate, party, etc., and seem to only want to deal with young women for sex.
So, the young women by their mid twenties are often wanting to settle down. But most of the guys their age don't.
This double standard was one of the reasons that I wanted girls and not boys. I figured that it would be harder to raise the later in an environment so antagonistic towards them.
Anonymous 10:11:
So how would you handle the girls who are hitting kids in the ass? Do they get a pass? Will they grow up to be self-indulgent and self-entitled enough to think that they can treat men and boys anyway they want or is that okay with you since girls are just fragile creatures to be protected and boys are the only ones who should learn self-control?
This is an interesting discussion, esp. in view of the recent death of Tom Snyder. The one interview of his that I remember most vividly was about battered men. They made sure that the guys were somewhat anonymous in order to protect them from ridicule. And then, lo and behold, this interview was picked up by SNL, where the person playing Snyder threw in so much detail that it was apparently easy to determine who the guys were.
The point even back then was that females can hit males with impunity, and if they complain, they are considered unmanly, etc. by men and women alike.
On a similar note, maybe because of this whole dynamic, I have had friends on multiple occasions be physically threatened by lesbians over their "girlfriends", and the guys invariably back off - fast. My theory though is that in most of those cases, the "girlfriend" is really bi, and the possessive one knows this.
Final thoughts here, at least for awhile.
The only time I ever hit a girl was when I was 19 and she was 18. Neither of us had siblings of the opposite sex, so didn't know the limits. I tickled her, she slapped me, and I slapped her back by instinct. We both sat back for a minute, and then laughed, since apparently we had both reacted to the other, and likely wouldn't have reacted in the same way if we had had opposite sex siblings.
Oh, and 35 years later, we are still friends.
Girls get no pass. But when left to their own impulse control skills, boys often take bad behavior further and get there faster than girls similarly left to their own impulse control skills. This is true when it comes to matters of newfound sexuality.
I know people may not see this incident as a sexual matter, because the boys' activity was so obviously without real consequence or bad intent. (We especially want to deny that aspect of it because that is the DA's justification for his awful overreaction.) But like an earlier commenter, I saw this incident as a child's way of expressing some of the adult feelings they are dealing with thanks to hormonal surges.
The offending boys (and any girls) need to be taken aside and seriously taught *why* this behavior will not be tolerated. It helps them understand that one of the big, big boundaries of adult sexuality--which they are just starting to comprehend--is you only touch another after an invitation from that person.
Most teen girls seem to get this concept pretty quickly, even if no one explicitly explains it to them. Teen boys, meanwhile, often do not immediately understand that gals do not have precisely the same sort of, er, drives that boys do.
Let's be frank. Men and women have different sex drives, and they express themselves differently. Teen boys typically don't know this right off the bat unless they are really empathic (yeah, right) or told by adults who themselves understand it.
So teaching teen boys undergoing puberty how to express their overpowering new interest in girls--and girls' bodies--involves taking care to instill the concept of respectful distance. Incidents like this one are a great opportunity to do that.
As this DA demonstrates, teaching boys how to control that part of their nature is even more important these days than it was when I was growing up. Society is pretty eager to punish males for even essentially harmless "sexual" behavior.
Sure, there are girls who will need that lesson too. But on average, they seem to get it much quicker and need far fewer reminders than boys.
anon 11:14: The problem is that society today regards all male sexuality as inherently evil. You can talk about teaching teenage boys more appropriate ways to express their interest in girls, but the fact is that, from a legal standpoint, no such way exists. The only thing you can teach them is that they are not to approach or touch any female, ever, under any circumstances. They are to speak to females only when spoken to. And when conversing with females, they are to exercise extreme care to not say aything that could in any way be construed as a sexual reference. As others have pointed out, this is good training for the modern workplace.
Anon:
"But when left to their own impulse control skills, boys often take bad behavior further and get there faster than girls similarly left to their own impulse control skills."
Bullshit.
"Most teen girls seem to get this concept pretty quickly, even if no one explicitly explains it to them"
Why then, do they continue to strike men after they become women?
Watch , please.
You may write well, but your agenda still shows.
Of course boys are more aggressive than girls -- such is the nature of sexual conduct amongst homo sapiens. Surely we know this -- that men chase women (and not really the other way around). On the other hand, women do an awful lot to get chased that men don't typically do -- just take one look at the clothes or the fact that men almost never wear make up on a date but women usually do. (So, it's not as though men have more sex drive just because they do the chasing.)
At any rate, this is all just down stream consequences of an old ploy to control men through hyper-policing sexuality. It is actually something that has always been in the female arsenal and quite predictably something taken out with a vengeance during all these recent gender wars. This with the kids is all just more of that. Everyone sees clearly how a pat on the butt now leads to serial raping later and equates the two. No one even thinks for a second that the sort of neurotic female fears over just the general idea of rape are being used to abuse and control an innocent person. No one even thinks that there is this side of the matter -- not even the boys who are a victim of it because they are, ironically, too innocent for that....
Adrian: Even if all that is true, I still think the school would be perfectly correct is making sure these kids understood their behavior is wildly inappropriate and a breach of the "don't touch without permission" rule.
I agree our society takes an unhealthy view of male sexuality at present. But unwanted @ss-slapping is unacceptable behavior. You can condemn the overreaction while still acknowledging the kids' misbehavior.
Olignecella:
"Bullshit"
Oh? I think crime statistics, truancy rates, levels of drug abuse, or almost any other indicator of risk-taking behavior (except pregnancy, I suppose) would support my view that young men tend to have relatively more difficulty exercising impulse control than young women.
I'm not trying to be all "sugar 'n spice/snips 'n snails" nursery rhyme here. But I do hold the view that, on average, young men will engage in more impulsive behavior more quickly than young women. I think the social science data generally supports that view, poorly produced You Tube jeremiads with andecdotal clips notwithstanding. ;)
As to why some women strike men, what can I tell you? Some women are inappropriately physcically aggressive. Sure. On average, though, let's acknowledge that men appear to more often have such issues than women.
As an aside, speaking to your point that women can be physically violent (which, I note is different from the issue I was actually speaking to), I teach martial arts. My anecdotal experience over the years is that I often spend time trying to teach guys how to *focus* their physical aggression while teaching women how *be* physically aggressive in the first place. I don't think that difference is due to societal conditioning. On average, women just don't seem wired for it the way the guys are. There are some gals, though, who show up and are able to throw down just fine. Still the most physically aggressive females I encounter in martial arts classes never come close to matching the overall aggressiveness of their outlier male counterparts.
The bell curves overlap, but are not a precise match, and all that...
Dr Helen:
My daughter had a similiar incident in middle school when when a boy "goosed" her at the top of the stairs leading into the bus. My daughter's response? She turned and literally punched the boy off the bus. (The school was very disappointed in me when I revealed that my only problem with the incident was that she hadn't lead with her left and followed up with a right.)
Bill - while generally leading with the left is preferred, in the situation you describe your daughter may have been correct. Her target was unprepared to counter. Getting in her best, most damaging punch first - before he was expecting anything - can give her the advantage. A weak left (delivered while turning to the left) might have just given him the chance to block the right.
I hope she had a good kick ready if needed.
"Adrian: Even if all that is true, I still think the school would be perfectly correct is making sure these kids understood their behavior is wildly inappropriate and a breach of the "don't touch without permission" rule."
But in many schools, talking about asking for permission would be considered harassment, and would be grounds for expulsion.
The bottom of the article says:
Two female victims later recanted, saying they were friends of the boys and felt pressured to make false statements against them.
The original felony charges subsequently were reduced to five misdemeanor counts of sexual abuse and five counts of harassment.
This is outrageous that they wanted to charge the boys with a felony!
Zach, she mentioned "The Holiday" in another post.
jw: I'm sure the feminists and hardline conservatives are very very proud of themselves
Can you elaborate on the hardline conservative part? Are you talking about taking things like a man, no matter how bad the world is against you?
"But in many schools, talking about asking for permission would be considered harassment, and would be grounds for expulsion."
Different issue, I believe. How and when girls and boys may court during school hours as a prelude to consensual touching is not an issue necessarily raised in considering how to deal with kids running down a hall slapping people's @sses.
I also think you overstate the situation. My guess is there are relatively few instances of overzealous adults purging schools of kids who politely ask other kids out on dates, express feelings attraction, etc.
Statistics play out in other ways as well, not just on the impulsive behaivor of young men (leading cause of death: themselves). As far as violence against women in Western society is concerned, yes we have made remarkable progess but that doesn't mean that it is no longer a problem and therefore feminists are barking at the wrong tree.
I'm not too clear on the statistics, but I think it is something like 1 out of 7 boys is sexually molested, while 3 out of 5 girls are sexually molested. The highest cause of non-medical death for pregnant women is homicide committed by their partners. 1 out of 3 college-aged women will experience a sexual assualt. A disturbing number of young women are raped and killed every year in America, sometimes in the most violent, cruel and brutal ways. The latest trend in horror films, so-called "torture porn" is overly focused on violence against women.
And while it does appear that the DA and the school administration went too far on this case, adolescent horseplay can and does often cross the line into awful behaivor, particularly when there is a precieved permissive environment. I myself was sexually harassed, along with several other girls, in middle school and it was completely ignored. I made complaints in a seperate incident to my bus driver and it reached all the way to the prinicpal. I was dragged out of class for a meeting with the principal, one of the boys who had harrased me, and his mother. I did not have a parent with me (nor were they told about this meeting) and the whole time I felt like they all believed that I had been making it up. No matter how many times I had told them that he had unwantedly touched my breasts...it didn't matter. And I was so ashamed of the whole thing that I never told my parents.
And just to make the point again, I don't know what it is about this site but it sure seems to be a "permissive" environment for unloved losers to vent their misogynist feelings. Particularly Anon 7:29pm with his "all women are manipulative" rant. Please. Save that sexist trash for your he-man women haters club. Just because you've had bad experiences doesn't mean every woman is like that. Please. Considering the way men have treated women throughout the history of humanity, we should be surprised that women still find men attractive.
Sure, there is socially awkward little Albert. But then there is also Ted Bundy, who would sometimes take the heads of the women he killed back to his apartment and masterbate to them. Ya know, power trips and all.
anon --
Well, you got me there. My 30+ years experience training people in MA hasn't shown me squat I guess.
By the way, risk taking behavior is not equatable to impulse control. You can take premeditated risks. As a martial artist you know this, so you're conflating.
My response stands. You moved the goal posts from boys and girls and their impulse control to murder and rape - not the same. Girls are no more in control of their impulses than boys. They are violent as well, just their forms of violence differ. And?
Violence be violence.
Eve --
The highest cause of non-medical death for pregnant women is homicide committed by their partners.
I believe it's auto accidents. Can you provide a cite?
And just to make the point again, I don't know what it is about this site but it sure seems to be a "permissive" environment for unloved losers to vent their misogynist feelings.
Reread the paragraphs above that one.
Your inclusion of the anomoly called Bundy was what, other than misandry?
when boys are demonised, when boys are told we are all rapists, when boys are told we are worthless.
then when the boys act out over this sense of alienation, thats another weapon against them.
if boys do nothing they are wimps, if they do anything they are rapists.
eve have you never heard the phrase lies , damn lies and statistics.
more men are killed due to violence, than women. 6 women killed themselves in prison and the uk government is bending over backwards, when 97 men killed themselves.. nothing is ever said.
how many men are killed each year, how many men are raped.. so you are saying that 60% of all women/girls are molested. in america thats well 300 million, half it, 150 million, half it again about 75 million yes thats right million are abused.. thats with a rough figure of all women, say 20% of that is children, thats 15 million girls.
lies, damn lies and statistics strike back.
Eve please provide some cites for your figures - they're even higher than those quoted in propaganda literature - e.g. 60% of girls have been molested and 33% of college aged women have been sexually assaulted!!!
I'm sorry about your experience in middle school, but that isn't grounds to throw around bogus sexual assault statistics.
Eve,
Just because you've had bad experiences doesn't mean you need to liken all men to Ted Bundy, a rare serial killer. Apparently, you do not practice what you preach, but shoot off your mouth so you can attempt to make others pay for what happened to you. That is pathetic--if this blog bothers you, why not go commiserate with the likes of Feministing or Pandagon where they hate men and love feminist propaganda. While what happened to you sounds wrong, it is not reason enough to want to punish all men and young boys. If you cannot see that a young boy being sent to jail for doing the same thing that his girl comrades were doing is an injustice, then you have no sense of fairness.
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/glance/vsx2.htm
check this out evie.. more men have died due to violence than women.
and here..
Males were almost 4 times more likely than females to be murdered in 2005..
but did anyone say anything about that.
eve, all of the statistics that you site about sexual assault and rape have been debunked numerous times. The studies are filled with bad methodology, noisy data, cherry-picked data, questionable definitions, and just plain made-up stuff. For example, most feminist organizations define as "rape" any instance in which an intoxicated women has sexual contact with a man. (Interestingly, if the intoxicated woman's partner is another woman, the definition does not apply.) If you look at their studies, they count as rape many instances in which both partners insist that the contact was consensual. They also lump into their statistics all instances of statutory rape, which up until ten years ago women were almost never prosecuted for. (In fact, prior to 1980 or so, most state statuatory-rape laws explicitly excluded women from prosecution.) Further, some feminist organizations count as rape all instances in which a women of college age has sex, even though the contact is consensual and both partners are above the age of consent.
In fact, feminists have so cheapened the definition of rape that the word hardly has any meaning any more. Like the word "Nazi", which has come to mean anyone that a liberal doesn't like, the word "rapist" has come to mean anyone that a feminist doesn't like. A number of leading feminists consider all man to be rapists, and refer to them as such.
As for Ted Bundy... well, I know of quite a few women who would consider someone like him highly desirable. What does that tell you about feminism today?
I'll note one other thing too: It is nearly impossible to get Google to produce any links to articles about debunking of sexual assault statistics. Apparently, Google has filters in place to keep these types of articles from coming up in a search. I tried a number of different combinations of keywords, and got only apologia articles stating things like "we know the statistics are made up, but the issue is so important that it's OK for us to use them anyway". I finally got a few links using Ask.com, such as this:
http://ombudsgod.blogspot.com/2002/10/more-reader-thoughts-on-fishy.html
Wasn't there a thread here a while back where a school has already implemented a no touch policy?
Hell, in this loony age in which we live, maybe it's better that way. 13 year old boys going to jail for 5 days for slapping butts on butt slapping day is too weird for me.
But who knows? Without proper punishment, and humiliation those boys could someday end up in an oval office with a cigar and a young girl with stars in her eyes.
Huh.....come to think of it, he got off a hell of a lot lighter than a couple 13 year old boys.
Maybe some day the kids can make millions on the circuit giving speeches.
Well, just to throw my $0.2 at Eve too...
Statistics play out in other ways as well, not just on the impulsive behaivor of young men (leading cause of death: themselves). As far as violence against women in Western society is concerned, yes we have made remarkable progess but that doesn't mean that it is no longer a problem and therefore feminists are barking at the wrong tree.
Let's say all these statistics were true. What I find disturbing is the way you say that they show that feminists are barking up the right tree. What do you mean by that? It's already illegal to rape, sexually assault and so on. So, you must mean that we need to do something else -- outlaw a bunch more stuff -- to prevent (I guess) all these extra rapes and stuff. In fact that whole thing is loopy in a very disturbing way: "Since there is crime our job isn't done yet -- we need to keep cracking down on everyone until we get all this crime stamped out!"
Of course, that's absurd, and you are only applying it to men. Basically you are willing crack down on men and boys until no men commit crimes? And the other thing is that the issue is all about what is or is not a crime. You are arguing that butt slapping should be a crime because rape is which is precisely the sort of ridiculous equation a number of posts have been criticizing. But, not only that, you are completely ignoring all the things that women do that aren't even questioned for one second. Now, of course, we all know that women can't possibly contribute to the crime when they get raped, for instance. But, then again, maybe we don't all know that and a lot of things like that.
And, with that in mind -- that a lot of your ideas rest on a contentious premises that aren't entirely valid outside of feminism -- perhaps there is a whole host of other crimes perpetrated primarily by women that aren't even contemplated in the law. In fact, consider further that while according to feminist doctrine, society has always been male dominated, recently a great deal of feminist inroads have been made and a number of things have changed quite dramatically. So, the situation men and women find each other in today is quite different from that of the barbaric male dominated days of yore. Could it be that these new highly feminist influenced days might have a whole slew of new potential issues regarding female behavior all newly introduced and yet going completely unaddressed due to the feminist-centric doctrines that created them in the first place? In other words, as things change dramatically from a systematic push for rights and privileges for women, is it really all that ridiculous to think that a lot of new stuff just doesn't get properly addressed by the losing side -- the men? Maybe the men dominated before -- but that was back when women weren't in the work place, couldn't vote or own property and so on. Now that this has all changed, here, in less than a century, you cannot possibly think that it's MEN's rights that are dominating the new female condition -- this condition was entirely created by feminists in spite of the old male dominated ways, right? I mean, it wasn't the chauvinists that secured a place in the work place for women, right?
its interesting the use of the word rape, everyone assumes its men on woman, but i have heard of men being raped by women, by men, and women being raped by women.
but all these "feminists" think its when a man and a woman.. and thats it.
http://www.male-rape.org.uk/
its similar to the words domestic violence, its assumed to be man on woman. but we all know it does happen the other way round.
both are wrong, its not a specific sexed crime, but society doesnt see it like that.
The Department of Justice's uniform crime statistics can be very enlightening: The rates of domestic violence in gay and lesbian couples are essentially the same as in heterosexual couples. This tends to undermine feminist claims that men are vastly more likely to be the aggressors. But be careful who you tell this to, or you might become a candidate for Mandatory Reeducation Sessions.
oligonicella-
That is one powerful video. I couldn't watch the whole thing right now, but wow!
The things you men have said in the comments above make me very sad. What's the point in teaching your son to be a gentleman when, evidently, the world won't treat him gently?
At least I can guarantee that butt-slapping will never be a felony in my son's school--since he's the only pupil. Thank God and Leeper v. Texas that I can homeschool.
Hardline conservative? Whats that?
Women are less violent than men, by nature.
However, if a woman is repeatedly told 'you can do whatever you want to a guy' instead of 'be a lady, and only slap guys in certain specific cases', then nurture will tend to bend nature, and the woman may well become more violent in action than most guys.
Women are also more vicious when it finally does come to violence than men as in the worst thing to happen to a prisoner is to be sent to the women of the tribe. Men tend to shift to violence quicker than women, but they are less vicious about it.
Its fairly simple. Men and women are different. But neither side is allowed to break certain basic rules, and will be reasonably punished if they do so.
Now, thats the ideal. In our messed up current situation....it reminds me of Pre-Victorian England. Children got hung for stealing bread. Criminality despite the punishment was widespread. But then a revival of Christianity occurred, and the punishments became sensible, and the populace became reasonable. Sounds like we need some more of that, and a lot less of new-fangled hokum.
Tennwriter
Oops--make that Leeper v. Arlington ISD.
Being a boy sure hurt when I got circumcised...
Ate lunch today at a restaurant with a large screen TV re-playing a Cincinnati Reds game. A commercial ran promoting the Reds. The commercial consisted of people slapping each others butts. Guys slapping guys, gals slapping guys, guys slapping gals. The commercial ended with a graphic, "We Are All Reds."
Seems the Cincinnati Reds are promoting sexual harassment and everyone associated with the making of this commercial needs to be sent to jail. Pronto.
exactly karen, why bother teaching boys good manners, when they are demonised anyway.
you teach a child to care to be good to be of benefit to society, and then you get "feminists" saying he is nothing but a rapist, he deserves what he gets.. your damned if you do and damned if you dont.
luckily there will be no child of mine brought into this next generation, and suffer as boys will suffer.
(thats another thing male circumcisum, how come its ok to mutilate boys genitals, and its bad to do it to a girls.. shouldnt it be the same.. religion aside, why is there a push for males to be "mutilated"..)
Karen,
Don't be sad, there are still some families that teach their boys to be gentlemen.
The important issue here, at least to me, is that the punishment for inappropriate behavior is consistent between boys and girls. If the punishments are inconsistent then the kids will notice the difference.
The goal should be "equality in all things." This applies to both positives and negatives. A woman should be paid at the same rate as a man holding the same job, and a woman should receive the same level of punishment as a man for committing the same crime.
a woman should only be paid the same (and most do) as men, if they do the same jobs as men, and not expect preferential treatment.
for example in wimbledon this year, women who play 3 sets of tennis, now get the same amount as men (but men play 5 sets of tennis), so it is equal pay but the women tennis play less than the men.. so in reality the women get more money.. because of the other benefits, like maternity leave, like flexi times when it comes to children etc.. with men its not so usual..
Circumcision may seem cruel, but how else can people tell I'm not a Hittite?
" Unfortunately for the kids, we have largely replaced relationships with rules."
Precisely. And the end-product of that, according to former Chicago White Sox manager Jerry Manuel, is that "Rules before relationships leads to rebellion."
Thank God and Leeper v. Texas that I can homeschool.
This is the real truth right here. Not only do we need school choice. Not only is public school nothing more than an abominable indoctrination/reeducation camp. But, there is something wrong with the very idea of institutionalizing education altogether -- even private schools. All genuine education happens on an apprenticeship model with one tutor/master and one pupil/apprentice. This business of some expert getting up in front of anything less than a room full of other experts and lecturing on some topic or another is bogus. Yes -- even most college education is bassackwards.
And yes, I am a crazy crack pot, but I'm not letting something like that stop me from speaking out....
adrian, I like you already.
So you're suggesting a parent pay some 30K per year per child to teach their kids? I think only the rich would get educations.
Like to hear your ideas on implementation for the non-rich.
No -- I'm suggesting we all homeschool. You are the tutor in the apprenticeship model. And, when the child surpasses what you can really teach them, then that is actually the true definition of "grown up". (In other words, your job is really done at that point.)
but there is a problem of how you determine whats being taught to your child. would you have yearly tests, how do you know they arent teaching race hatred, thats the problem with home schooling.
but homeschooling would mean at least one parent staying home all day long, and i dont see many people doing it, not with the economy, and the expense of living.
if the parents get money to teach their children.. what about those who cant or wont have children, what about those people.. in theory it would work but in reality it definatly wouldnt.
bugs, I just had this frightening vision of you at the mall........
"See!?!? I'm not a Hittite!!"
adrian --
In home schooling, the student cannot "surpass[es] what you can really teach them", only match it.
So, you're also suggesting that children never advance beyond the learning of their parents and in particular, ill educated parents raise ill educated children.
Do you have a working knowledge of physics, biology, engineering, etc? Much less cutting-edge.
Teaching Hate
Something like that isn't any sort of criterion on which anyone has the right to evaluate someone else. It's an already politically loaded matter that only ever was a way to play on common popular sentiments.
Feasibility
It certainly is feasible. People certainly could have a parent home to raise the kids. In fact, with terribly many young children, it isn't feasible for both parents to work -- you spend more in child care than you get out of a second job. If people had all the buckets of money that go into public education, it would become even more feasible.
Expertise
Show me some physicists teaching physics at public school. Or, mathematicians teaching math. Not even most high school teachers are really experts in their field let alone most K-8 teachers. And furthermore, the idea that a kid even should learn a little of everything under the sun (so that you would have to be an expert in every field in academia) is also just a modern concoction that at best begs the question. Who says that is what an education is supposed to be? It never used to be.
Can You Do It
Yes you can. Virtually everyone can teach basic literacy and numeracy. Not to diminish the value of training and experience, but there is no real expertise that is truly required for that other than being literate, yourself. And most people are -- even uneducated ghetto dwellers. Of course, most of us want our children to be more educated than just that, and it is true that you must first educate yourself before you can educate them. But, even that is quite doable by ordinary high school drop outs if they are motivated to do so. Don't act like you have to impart PhD level knowledge in every academic field in existence by the time they are 18.
The "Right" to an Education
But, what about the ones that aren't going to do that? Don't kids have a right to be educated? In a word, no -- certainly not beyond basic literacy. It's a shame, don't get me wrong. I'm not in favor of that, personally, but then again, I think people really ought to do all sorts of things that I certainly shouldn't be allowed to use the police to force them to do.
Forcing It Anyway:
We just end up politicizing it. Not only have we not really saved any children from being uneducated, we have created an artificial reality of what "educated" even means. Now more than ever, a real education is really only ever enjoyed by an elite few that seek it out, themselves. At best what we have is all variety of vocational training in "fields" invented not more than 100 years ago. More often than that we have a fraud of not really teaching the subjects we purport to. And, a large portion of the time what we have is nothing more than a political battle between various factions over whose dogma we are going to teach.
The Inescapable Problem with Institutions:
An education is really just a very small extension of raising your child. People think they can delegate this to "the experts". There really aren't any such experts, and so in delegating it, what we have is the public not really spending enough time thinking for themselves about what an education really is, how their kids ought to be raised, and so on. No one can figure that out for you. But, whether you are dropping your kid off at a public school or dropping them off at a private school, that is essentially what you are doing -- letting someone else figure all that out for you.
We should all be spending a lot more time thinking about what subjects should be taught. Why those subjects? What about them is so important and what isn't? All the experts in the world cannot answer those questions for you any more than someone with their PhD who actively publishes to the most prestigious journals of moral philosophy can really tell you what's right or wrong. Not even actual high school teachers spend enough time actually thinking about that. They just turn the crank on whatever textbook they are using that year. They don't even question the book let alone the legitimacy of the entire subject in the first place.
Mercurior-- you raised an objection to homeschooling in regards to what's being taught. Why do you think race hate isn't being taught in the institutional schools? Why do you think an individual family would teach it? What do you see in the world today that upholds your faith in the government's ability to solve problems?
In addition, you say there is a problem of determining what gets taught in a way that suggests that public school parents get to determine what gets taught. That's the most pie in the sky thing I've heard in a long time! As a former high school teacher, let me assure you that the vast majority of parents don't know or care what's being taught to their children. They certainly did not participate in any way in any curriculum discussions I ever had or attended.
Oligoncella-- I have never come across a homeschooling parent who wants less for his child! I have consistently come across homeschooling parents who exclaim about how much they learn while homeschooling. Yes, most were ill-educated--because they went to public school! But that doesn't mean they can't now do something to rectify their own ill-educations.
In addition, when my son gets to the point that I can no longer teach his math or science, then we may very well take advantage of dual-enrollment community college classes. They have an excellent reputation here.
Adrian-- thank you for an excellent defense of homeschooling!
adrian --
Didn't say physicist, mathematician, expert or Phd., I said working knowledge. Don't conflate.
karen --
Don't put words in my mouth please. I said nothing about their desires, only indicated their abilities would flag.
I went to public school and am not ill-educated and there are home-schooled children who are woefully ill-educated. You're point fails. On that point, shouldn't the one teaching already know the subject?
You're "in addition" proves my point. Most parents are woefully inadequate to teach and their children would reach that point quite early. Not all, most.
Wondering if the fact that some parents, perhaps most, are incapable of teaching their children at home is also result of how we were taught in primary and secondary education. As in what to think instead of how to think. I've read where many colleges have problems with new students, having remedial classes left and right in math, science, and English - before the student's (actually students') furthering education can grab a foot hold.
We have all been hearing for years about the dumbing down of America. Many new scientists and engineers being hired by American companies were neither born or educated in this country. It takes two incomes to manage what could be done with a single income at one time. No spank! No discipline! Now the police put 13 year olds in jail after a strip search, and the media is blaming the parents. But I can go to jail if I spank my kid. Sounds like the current situation is keeping everyone off balance. If I were paranoid, it looks intentional. Eh, comrades?
Wasn't it Thomas Jefferson who said a little revolution every now and then is a good thing?
br549 --
That dumbing down has been at the behest of parents as well as slacking 'educators'. The "my kid shouldn't be..." syndrome. I doubt those kids would be better served with home ed. And, yes Adrian, I think all kids deserve an education.
It takes two incomes to manage what could be done with a single income at one time.
I think it's more along the lines of it takes two incomes to manage to live the life-style that most families want now, which is a helluva lot grander than I remember growing up in.
Well, that is a great point! If our public education was so wonderful how did we end up so incompetent and incapable of teaching our kids? You can't have it both ways.
"I went to public school and I'm not ill-educated." Yeah you are. I'm not being snobby when I say that -- we all are. It's just like the way people say "I took a self-defense class and now I can FIGHT!" No you can't and if you get in a real street fight there is a good chance you'll get hurt pretty bad.
Thankfully, you don't have to be really educated to teach your children basic literacy and whatever other trivia you feel is important. The only problem comes in when someone else comes along and says "No, my trivia is more important." (The martial arts equivalent to this is that anyone can do push-ups, sit-ups, a bunch of calisthenics and get in shape. Then, teach your kids the Touch of Death if you want to. But, don't make me pay a bunch of taxes to fund the teaching of the Touch of Death to all kids and certainly don't make me teach my kids that crap.)
Stick the teachers and administrators in imprison. Or sentence them to life without parole as Wal-Mart Greeters.
That would send a message...
It's be nice to know how all the kids involved felt about the consequences--in their own words & without someone hovering over them telling them what to say.
This is just bad for all those kids. The boys get time & a sex-offender label & the girls either end up realizing they can behave with impunity or if they have any empathy get loaded down with some serious guilt/trauma.
I mean, hey, if these kids were really friends, I doubt the girls would want like seeing their friends injured like this. Almost like survivor's guilt.
Or maybe it gets drilled into their heads that they can only be victims & live afraid.
Those boys sure will. Let's not forget permanently reduced school & job prospects.
Sick.
prussian blue, the neo nazi hate band, they were home schooled.. they dont have contact with anyone of other faiths.. or colours..
the government does allow for a mixture of cultures which can bring about a wider understanding of society thats not relegated to one single group..
ok imagine someone teaches creationism, and only that.. not evolution, what if they are taught the wrong information at homeschooling. at least schools have a broader plan, with usually a similar sort of knowledge base.
so is it ok for say me to teach any child i have, its ok to kill gay(or put the group of your choice in there) people because they are against the bible..
i used to work in a college, and with a lot of students, some from all over the world. they mixed and they learned about life by experiencing the world through other eyes..
who is there to make that happen if everyone is homeschooled.. and what would happen to the imagination the curiosity of life if no one is shown the real world.
is it ok for homeschooled children to be taught its ok to kill people because you can go to heaven. and not allow them the chance to see that we are all human. is that right..
who decides what is taught? or should we let children who KNOW NO BETTER be taught to hate and to destroy other people.. due to the blindness of the parents an their possible religious beleifs..
Well whoever is the one to decide what's right -- it probably isn't you. Maybe the neonazi's ought to be able to decide and we should exclusively teach all the hate-stuff in public school. Actually, we know who should be the one's to decide -- the parents. The neonazi parents will raise their kids to be neonazis. The multicultural parents that value diversity will teach their kids to be multicultural.
But, the idea that one just has the right to decide what contentious political doctrine someone else's children should be taught is o-u-t-r-a-g-e-o-u-s. I mean really -- you are just sitting there saying "I just can't believe the so and so's are teaching their kids such and such" and marching in with police officers and forcing people to give up their children for your political indoctrination! And, you think they're the nazis? I really am floored every time I see this line of reasoning. I simply cannot imagine one person respecting another person any less than this sentiment does.
What if the parents teach a bunch of religious dogma and neonazi propaganda? Why that would almost be as horrible as if they taught their kids that it was okay to round up everyone's children just because they didn't agree with their parents political or religious views.
i dont know why you have gotten so annoyed, so answer me is it ok for a parent to teach that its ok for their child to kill and murder anyone NOT of their religion.
shouldnt there be at least a minimum test of what they are learning.
(and btw i dont have children i wont have children, in part its because i am scared of the kind of blind teaching that can happen in closeted areas).
but when the teaching has a possible negative effect to society.
if there was say a muslim family who homeschool their child, and teach it to hijack planes and crash them into buildings. that would be ok then... since thats homeschooling. you have to question things like that. parents to teach hatred of others and they teach them to carry it out. homeschooling isnt the whole answer, it could cause far more problems. but then again people who are into homeschooling cant see the potential bad side.. (sound familiar), and so they blindly follow the parents idea;s some of which are dangerous..
what about feminist families is it ok for them to teach gender hatred, all men are rapists.. what about male households who teach female hatred that its ok to rape women..and beat them up.. are they ok so long as they are homeschooled.
there should be a minimum level of education that has to be attained. maybe once a year a test.. that covers the most relevant thing like history, geography, maths, of course if the flat earthers dont beleive in a round planet. thats ok then isnt it..??
of course if you get upset about someone contradicting you about homeschooling, and quite frankley you seemed angry. what lesson is that teaching a homeschooled child that no one else has an opinion thats worthwhile?
LOL. Alright, I think you're just maybe a bit young or naive, at any rate. Show me a gay couple repeatedly sodomizing their six year old adopted son during "sex education class" and you might have a point. Even then, they would simply be prohibited from doing something almost universally extremely objectionable rather than required to do something only contentiously advocated by one faction in society. Outside of straightforward child abuse, parents unequivocally have the right to raise their kids as they see fit. Just cavalierly sending the police out to force creationists to teach their kids about evolution is perhaps one of the most sure fire ways to get your head blown off or start a civil war, at any rate. In fact, give me something more worth fighting for, dying for or going to war over than my family and way of life.
What is most striking is how cavalier you are about it. You're taking some contentious belief and imagining that it should be required just because you think the people that reject it are crazy crackpots.
And just in case I haven't been clear enough, here:
1) Yep -- Muslim extremists have the right to teach their kids how to hijack planes even if their kids don't have the right to actually do that.
2) Yes -- Feminists have the right to teach their kids to hate men.
3) Yes -- Misogynists have the right to teach their kids to hate women.
4) Neonazis have the right to raise their kids to become neonazis
5) Creationists have the right to raise their kids to be creationists and to not teach them evolution
6) Multiculturalists have the right to teach their kids to hate neonazis
7) Flat Earthers have the right to teach their children that the Earth is flat and, particularly, to not have to teach their kids that the Earth is round
And, I might add that none of this has anything to do with homeschooling. I don't know why you keep saying "just because they are homeschooled". You have the right to homeschool pretty much any way you want because you have the unequivocal right to raise your own children. Not the other way around.
But, the most amusing thing of all is the idea that the education establishment would have the audacity to check up on parents to ensure a "minimum level of education" when they have failed to meet the vast majority of people's standards. All that will do is force people to address irrelevant subjects while sacrificing important ones. In fact, you have already screwed up, in my opinion, by including history and geography as separate subjects in their own right. And yet, my kids already know more geography than comparably aged public schooled kids. And, don't even get me started on math....
Yeah you are. I'm not being snobby when I say that -- we all are.
Disagree. Other than your bald assertion, give some rationale. By that, I mean actual rationale.
It's just like the way people say "I took a self-defense class and now I can FIGHT!" No you can't and if you get in a real street fight there is a good chance you'll get hurt pretty bad.
Um, sonny, knowing martial arts, even being fantastic at them like Bruce Lee is not a guarantee against getting hurt. No intelligent MA has ever claimed it is. Where in hell did you come up with that idea? Oh, yeah. Straw argument.
Thankfully, you don't have to be really educated ...
And, you devolve into moronity.
Nice advertisement for home schooling there.
Other than your bald assertion, give some rationale.
LOL. Nah -- clearly such gems of locution as "straw argument" unequivocally demonstrate your not-entirely-ill-educatedness. It really... "begs the question"... "Why didn't I see it sooner??"
I yield to the better man....
A lot of opinions here. And that's just on one blog - that people who relatively think on loosely related terms come to on a regular basis.
I loved 1st through 6th grades. They were elementary schools then, in my home town area. 7th, 8th, and 9th were "junior high" school. Hated it. 10th, 11th, and 12th, were "high school". Couldn't stand it.
Spent 1st, 2nd and 3rd grades in Catholic school. From 4th on up in public schools. I did not need to crack a math book, English book, or science book until 9th grade in public schools, and made A's. Catholic schools were that good back then, or public schools in south eastern Virginia were that bad. I'm really not sure which. By the time I needed to crack a book, I was too far gone. Then I became the juvenile delinquent. I was so bored, I skipped school until caught just to see how long it would take. They did not miss me enough to call my parents for 17 straight school days. Of course everyone came down heavy, although I was not strip searched at least. That's when I grabbed my back pack, my tooth brush, over coat and underwear and became the inspiration for a Paul Simon song.
Hey, wait. Maybe the problem WAS me. I hate when an epiphany rears its ugly head.
On another note, I am still wrestling with how in the hell "sperm donor" and "altruism" got in the same sentence.
And Eltie Poo wants to shut down the Internet?
Oligonicella --
Other than your bald assertion, give some rationale.
Adrian --
...
but cant you see the possible dangers, that homeschooling can cause. teaching a child with no ability to see the other persons view, will mentally castrate those children.
**
It turned out the Warrens had home schooled before, in Arizona, where they were convicted of child abuse. An investigator there wrote: "The children are tortured physically and emotionally." That's information North Carolina school officials are not required to collect.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/10/13/eveningnews/main577817.shtml
**
there are potentials for abuse like that, for some really bad ideas to be passed on. is that ok just because they are homeschooled. but i see you cant understand the problems it can cause.. perhaps because i am not invested emotionally in children i can see the bad points rather than the "good" you see.
br549 -- Mine are given away for the good of humanity.
there are potentials for abuse like that, for some really bad ideas to be passed on. is that ok just because they are homeschooled. but i see you cant understand the problems it can cause.. perhaps because i am not invested emotionally in children i can see the bad points rather than the "good" you see.
Our argument clearly has nothing to do with homeschooling -- it is simply about whether parents have the right to raise their own children. I'm not saying that Muslim extremists have the right to teach their kids to hate America but only if they are homeschooling. I'm saying they have the unqualified right to do that. I'm saying that parents have the right to raise their children, and no one has the right to even so much as question that. You think that if some parents somewhere are teaching their children some ideas you think might be dangerous, you have the right to intervene. That's what the point of contention is about.
Of course, your position on this is ridiculous to the point of being nutty. I'm sorry, but we all have to draw the line somewhere. If you really are going to take a position like "Parents should all submit to state inspections of their parenting style and religious and political beliefs" then only a loony debate can possibly ensue from that. That's up there with state mandated sex partners or something.
Mercurior,
Why do you have such bald faith in the public schools and no faith at all in parents?
You can through up a few single instances of "bad teaching" amongst homeschooling parents--and for every one you give I can give a dozen or more from public schools.
In addition, you object to parents teaching certain thoughts--hello thought police! Do you really think that public school parents don't teach their kids hate? Do you really think that public school innoculates them from their parent's hate? I don't think you know anything about kids or public schools.
And how does testing for minimum competency "maybe once a year a test.. that covers the most relevant thing like history, geography, maths" uncover hateful thoughts anyway?
Furthermore, are you seriously suggesting that because one parent might not educate his children "appropriately" that no parent be able to homeschool? So, because you might speed, I can't drive?
why do you have such , dislike or hatred of the school system.
millions of people including you, used it and you turned out ok, what about dr helen, she turned out better than most..
this is the blindness of the homeschoolers. they dare not think or listen to other opinions, so theres no point, in talking to you adrian and karen, since you cant see possible bad ideas being promulgated.
schools may not be the best for everyone, and conversely homeschooling isnt the best. but where do you give the freedon to teach haterd, adrian and you karen seem to be full of anger and hatred that someone dared say its not always a good idea. if you are this upset over one person questioning it, what if other topics are against your teaching, like abortion rights, atheism etc.. will you still say the same.]
obvoiusly i must be stupid or naive or whatever, because i wasnt homeschooled. is that true for everyone else..that homeschoolers are the only ones who know the "truth"
Home schooling is a big mistake in most cases. Children should not be isolated this causes them not to be able to cope in the wider environment when they eventually have to venture into the outside world. Is is an isolationist ideal, not what children need and I must say what parents need as well.
Where is the professional training of these parents, how do you know that they are teaching correctly.
Where is the competition that children need. Or do you envisage a society where there are no winners and losers in case it upsets children. This is ludicrous.
Are you saying that parents should be the ones teaching these offspring in their own homes, where do the parents get a break from the inevitable whining and constant need for attention from these children.
The only people I have heard talking about home teaching are the parents of children who have been excluded from schools as being out of control.
Everyone needs to be able to cope with all kinds and people in the outside world, You may as well say these are in a form of prison.
Sooner or later these home taught children have to go out into the world and the odds on are they will not be able to cope with it.
As someone who has worked in the educational field and with deprived and abused children I can speak from experience .
Parents should be there to nurture the children but leaving the experts to teach.
The idea that there are more paedophiles and abusers out there is incorrect, there are larger numbers simply because the world population has increased but percentage wise is no more than in the 1800's /1900's the only difference is that we now have television, newpapers freely available to more people and that the press zone in on anything that will sell more papers that is why we get to hear more harrowing stories these days. Id you do not allow children to play and adapt to their own needs int he community you are failing those children and there their children's children ad infinitum.
Mercurior:
Again, what I am reacting "violently" to is your idea that you have some kind of right to police parenting -- not anything to do with the homeschooling. No -- I'm not going to seriously entertain that. Karen might, but I'm not. I just don't think anyone has to. There are lots of such ideas like that which are ridiculous: flat earth, elvis is still alive, etc.
giselle:
I'm calling bullshit on almost everything you are saying...
Socialization
Homeschooled kids live in the world just like public schooled kids. They do after school activities, they go out to restaurants, they go to the store, and so on. Exactly what are you people doing in class in public school -- socializing?? No wonder public school sucks.
Expertise
First of all, it's none of your business -- you have no right to oversee the parents. They have every right to make sure the teachers they are paying are qualified and doing their job, but it just simply does not go in the other direction. That goes back to: you don't have a right to tell me how to raise my child. Furthermore, the teachers, themselves, aren't particularly trained. That's right -- I'm calling bullshit on your college of education degree. I'm sure other people value it, but I don't, and I shouldn't have to buy into it.
Where's the competition? (wtf?)
The same place it always has been -- what does going to public school have to do with it? You seem to think that homeschooling means that you put your kid in a rocket and shoot him to the Andromeda galaxy. Homeschooled kids live in society just like they would if they went to public school. Public schooled kids can avoid competition just like homeschooled kids. Since they both go to the same after school base ball team or soccer or judo or swim or whatever, they pretty much share the same experience in that regard.
Where do the parents get a break? (again -- wtf?)
If you didn't want kids then you shouldn't have had them. Now that you do, don't act like it is okay to pawn them off on strangers. Of course, you always can pay someone to take our kids off your hands, but it is to your own detriment. You really are better off raising your own kids and not giving them over to strangers.
You may as well say these are in a form of prison.
That's just a bald-faced lie. Homeschooling is almost never like that.
Sooner or later these home taught children have to go out into the world and the odds on are they will not be able to cope with it.
You don't really know what you are talking about.
I can speak from experience
Nope -- you obviously don't know anything about what you are talking about or you are deliberately lying. You're trying to imagine what homeschooling might be like, but the vast majority of actual homeschooling is nothing like what you are imagining.
but leaving the experts to teach.
What experts? Show me some practicing mathematicians teaching math in my local public school, and I might consider putting my kids in school.
**************
Bottom line:
There is no such thing as "the experts" when it comes to raising your own children. I don't care how many PhDs in child psychology they have, they cannot raise your kids for you. Or, at least, you shouldn't try to get them to. This whole socialization argument one hears so often is complete BS. My homeschooled kids, for instance, live in a neighborhood, play with other kids, and so on. Homeschooling doesn't and never has meant "lock your kids in a dungeon and make sure they never see or talk to other human beings". Homeschooling parents would tend to have to deliberately stop socialization by moving to the middle of nowhere and making sure the kids don't wander too far and that no one comes to their property. And, if a parent did want to do that, it is, once again, none of your damn business! You don't have a right to tell parents how to raise their kids just because you disapprove of their parenting choices, for crying out loud.
Grow up!
did i say anything about policing it, i just said to stop the spread of dangerous ideas, and or the lack of real learning, there should be a test to prove they are learning.
i can see that your closed minded adrian, unwilling to see any view that anyone else has. and thats the whole point.
you know it all then, you are better than everyone else then.. teachers are dumb, people who send children to school are dumb..
the real world is tough and hard to live in, if you dont let children learn about the real life and not the sanitised version homeschoolers teach (which mostly is religious texts)
but i can see you are closed minded. and i feel sorry for that, and thats the very attitude that i object to.
As to socialization - I think a lot of what passes for socialization in public schools is just the opposite. It's locking up a bunch of kids together and letting them work it out for themselves. Not as bad as Lord of the Flies, but the same general situation.
I'm not sure homeschooling does much better, as the child learns mostly how to socialize with adults and children within his/her own family group. This is not really socialization. Doesn't offer any practical lessons in how to deal with people who are different - maybe just lectures about how you "should" deal with them.
The best place to get socialized is in society, with adults along to provide guidance. How to make that happen, I have no idea.
I can remember the school yard at recess being a pretty tough place at times. Win, loose, or draw almost daily. Most of my friends were in my neighborhood. I believe I'd have known them whether we went to the sames schools or not.
I have yet to see any one individual's points of view survive intact. It is, has been, and probably always will be quite easy for one to poke holes in another's ideas. Such is a blog.
Guys popped my bra strap. I kicked them in the nuts. It all evened out.
Well what did you expect? You're not supposed to wear a bra on your head and cover your ears with the cups.
It begs the response.
I suppose if they were wearing condoms on their fingers the DA would have looked the other way.
徵信社, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 外遇沖開, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信, 徵信社
85cc免費影片85cc免費影片sex520免費影片免費 a 片85cc免費影片台灣論壇免費影片免費看 aa的滿18歲影片85cc免費影片線上觀賞免費Ａ片線上免費a片觀看a片免費看小魔女免費影城A片-sex520aaa片免費看短片aaaaa片俱樂部sex888免費看影片sex520免費影片sex免費成人影片馬子免費影片免費線上a片成人圖片區18成人avooo520sex貼片區臺灣情色網線上免費a長片免費卡通影片線上觀看gogo2sex免費 a 片sex520免費影片援交av080影片免費線上avdvd免費 aa 片試看,成人影片分享後宮0204movie免費影片免費線上歐美A片觀看sex888影片分享區微風成人av論壇plus論壇自拍情色0204movie免費影片aaa片免費看短片免費色咪咪影片網aaaa彩虹頻道免費影片日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞85cc免費影城5278論壇倉井空免費a影片bbs x693 com sex888a片免費觀賞sexy girls get fucked吉澤明步彩虹頻道免費短片sex520-卡通影片台灣情色網無碼avdvdaaa影片下載城彩虹頻道免費影片 sex383線上娛樂場一本道 a片 東京熱情色影片彩虹成人avdvd洪爺影城高中生援交偷拍自拍限制級色情 片
視訊做愛視訊美女無碼A片情色影劇kyo成人動漫tt1069同志交友網ut同志交友網微風成人論壇6k聊天室日本 avdvd 介紹免費觀賞UT視訊美女交友..........................
puma basketBlack is lubricious, can match, but young people don't want to match with brunetpuma femmes, can try even cardigan knitting coat will appear lively cap. Boys and girls, puma CATcan choose to choose self-cultivation
kiss168下載akiss168kiss168成人免費情人視訊kiss911kiss911貼圖片區kiss168下載first kiss台灣kiss倩色網免費ava片線上看a 免費影片線上直播小魔女a自拍大眾論壇成人用品維納斯yam天空影音18禁成人網成人光碟taiwankiss免費視訊聊天kiss情網線上免費a片
Post a Comment
<< Home