SES schools worldwide

Discussion of the SES, particularly in the UK.
sugarloaf
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2004 11:40 am

SES schools worldwide

Postby sugarloaf » Mon Mar 28, 2005 8:59 pm

Although the discussions and accounts of experiences on this forum seem to focus on the UK, and the childrens schools here, with the exception of some friends from the Netherlands and the USA, we haven?t heard much from people involved in SES affiliated organisations around the world, or the childrens schools they run.

One of the main issues being ?explored? here relate to the SES and its relationship to children. The Dutch and US children?s schools don?t seem to be particularly large or established, unlike those in South Africa and Autralia/New Zealand.

Are Parents and pupils in those schools unaware of this site? Are any ?members? of the SES in those countries reading this forum? I would be interested to hear your views, and whether or not any of the content here resonates with you in any way.

(If you do have comments, but no wish to post them on this forum, just ?PM? me)

:-)

SL
Last edited by sugarloaf on Sat May 21, 2005 12:29 pm, edited 1 time in total.

mgormez
Posts: 501
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2003 9:33 pm
Location: Amsterdam
Contact:

Re: SES schools worldwide

Postby mgormez » Mon Mar 28, 2005 9:40 pm

sugarloaf wrote:The Dutch and US children?s schools don?t seem to be particularly large or established, unlike those in South Africa and Autralia/New Zealand.


There's no Dutch school (Platoschool) anymore, bad reputation killed it off. There simply weren't enough students in the end.
Mike Gormez

Shout
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Reality
Contact:

Postby Shout » Mon Mar 28, 2005 10:10 pm

Hooray!

Shout
Posts: 101
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:19 pm
Location: Reality
Contact:

Mark Broadwith

Postby Shout » Sat May 14, 2005 1:58 pm

_____________________________________________________________
Last edited by Shout on Wed Nov 22, 2006 8:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Alban
Posts: 271
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 11:23 am
Location: London

Re: Mark Broadwith

Postby Alban » Sat May 14, 2005 5:31 pm

Hi Shout,

Shout wrote:Mark Broadwith mistreated me and others. Similarly to many SES teachers he has a history of violence, aggression and it seems sexual misconduct in schools. He must be removed from an educational enviroment, but he is currently Headmaster of an SES school in Auckland, New Zealand.
Would SES Schools Action like to explain how 'acknowledgement and an apology' will bring him to justice?
Would SES Schools Action like to explain how 'acknowledgement and an apology' will protect the SES children of Auckland from him?
Would SES Schools Action like to explain how 'acknowledgement and an apology' will save SES children around the world from "love and discipline", from "universal truths", from having their reality taken away and their feelings denied?


Criminal acts must be reported to the police. Regardless of where someone is in the world, if the police feel that there is a case to answer they will use whatever powers they have to make sure that person is brought here to answer.

In a situation such as the one you have described, it would not be wise to discuss the details on a public forum, the only avenue is to talk to the police and to leave it in their hands.

SESSA is not a police force and should not act as some sort of a middleman. As has been stated previously, it's purpose is to try and open doors with St James Independent Schools and their governors, so that acknowledgement and apologies can take place. It does not and cannot hope to represent all pupils' positions as they are as diverse as the pupils themselves, and are dependent on the level of abuse the ex-pupil suffered.

I fully acknowledge your position and resultant anger, and can only urge you to take it up with the police. We all know these things happened and we know the people who acted illegally, inappropriately, and who abused their position of trust. We all have stories to tell but must each take the appropriate action in relation to our own experiences.

User avatar
bella
Posts: 221
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 10:52 am

Postby bella » Mon May 16, 2005 5:47 am

Are any ?members? of the SES in those countries reading this forum? I would be interested to hear your views, and whether or not any of the content here resonates with you in any way.


Hi Sugarloaf.

I attend the Brisbane SES-affiliated school (School of Philosophy) but I haven't posted here for some months. Just briefly - yes, some of the content resonates with me. I've experienced many of the same doubts and questions as those expressed here by members, non-members and ex-members, but I've resolved pretty much all of them to my satisfaction.

My feeling is that the tendency is for this to be a sort of survivor website for those people who've suffered mistreatment by members and employees of the SES, and I often feel my input will be irrelevant, or dismissed since I tend to allow for human error/predisposition in any organisation. I also don't wish to trivialise the experiences of people here, or step on any toes by questioning those experiences and attitudes too deeply. I'd be happy to talk about anything you like, but I'm not going to be much good for a blanket criticism of the SES and its affiliated schools, since I'm happy with the way things operate at the schools I've attended.

User avatar
a different guest
Posts: 620
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 12:13 am
Location: Australia

Postby a different guest » Mon May 16, 2005 9:12 am

Bella - WB :)

From my reading of this thread I think the main thrust is about what has happened in the children's schools around the world. Certainly I am concerned about the aussie schools when I read such bizarre things as the girls being taken aside for separate "forgiveness and obedience" lessons. Who on earth thinks it is normal for a 10 year old girl to be quoted as saying (I paraphrase a bit here) "it's such a wonderful feeling when I obey instantly".

There are some other threads here that deal with the adult schools - but yes, probably the majority of posters here are dealing with their experiences at SES schools in their childhood.

However I, and some others, are also keen to hear experiences (or perhaps share experiences) about the adult schools. For the adult schools at least, there has not been "blanket" criticism - some people have got good out of it, but also acknowledge the "bad".

Perhaps by more rigourous discussion of the "bad" in the adult schools this could then impact more favourably on the children's schools?

But then again, maybe not, I have a HUGE problem with the whole underlying sexism of the SES. How can one have feminist idealogy and STILL subscribe to their outdated notions of gender???

NYC
Posts: 122
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 10:17 pm

Postby NYC » Tue May 17, 2005 3:31 pm

Hello Bella,
I am a currently registered student in the adult school in New York. I've read some of your old posts, and am curious how the school in Brisbane responded to you when you raised the allegations of child abuse on this board w/ them (I'm assuming you did so -- since the events people describe here are quite the opposite of the stated intentions of the org.)

I asked my tutor about it, and his answer to me is posted on the "Attending the adult schools" thread http://www.whyaretheydead.net/phpBB2/vi ... 7754f74889

I have written elsewhere that I see sexism and a fake elitism in the NY school -- though not as violent or extreme as what's described in the children's schools. So far, my interest is in seeing the SES/SoPP reform -- I think it might be possible, based on their own stated belief system (which I share in part.)

I feel that people like us -- adult students in countries outside Britain -- are particularly well situated to encourage a REAL inquiry at St. James and in the SES. These allegations have got to get off the internet and be heard in an unbiased, independent format, and the people accused of abuse deserve a chance to defend themselves. However, I don't see how that format can be independent if St. James has sole responsibility for choosing the judge.

It's so important that the Chair of the school's inquiry be fair, and so far the students committee/s have done a good job of keeping the school's governors honest. But it seems obvious to me that the inquiry Chair must be either randomly assigned, as s/he would be in a court case, or selected with the input of both (all?) parties -- St. James and the committees of former students.

It's messier for the school obviously, but necessary for the inquiry to mean anything.

Bella, I hope you will continue to post here. You wrote that
My feeling is that the tendency is for this to be a sort of survivor website for those people who've suffered mistreatment by members and employees of the SES, and I often feel my input will be irrelevant, or dismissed
but I hope that now there is the Yahoo group dedicated solely for former St. James/St. Vedast students, this website can become more of a tool for free discussion and debate of the School's teaching -- "General discussion on SES," as the forum is named. I think that a free-speech format, with no hierarchical control of information or communication, is JUST what this org is needing!

NYC

NYC
Posts: 122
Joined: Mon Feb 21, 2005 10:17 pm

Postby NYC » Tue May 17, 2005 5:21 pm

Hi ADG,
I got the full quote you're refering to from the John Colet school website (http://johncolet.nsw.edu.au/Articles/se ... sophy.html). By the way, what town/province do you live in?
Obedience means following laws, both man-made and universal. For example the rules of the road, and the most important laws, the Ten Commandments. This doesn't just apply to children, but to all mankind, as it is beneficial to all. When I obey instantly what anybody asks of me, I feel light and happy.(10 yrs old )

Can't help wondering how light and happy this girl would feel if she instantly obeys a child molester. Obviously, she is NOT being taught to discriminate between legitimate authority and exploitation.

This girl will also have a very hard time defending herself from aggressive boys and men when she is "of age." When a girl is 16, 18, 20, a lot of characters come along, and too many young women have not learned how to defend themselves, to do only what they WANT to do, sexually speaking. Unless some other influence comes in, this girl is going to be unprepared for the dating world. The conventional wisdom is that one in four women has been subject to some type of sexual aggression in the USA. That sounds high, but is somewhat confirmed when I talk to my friends. And I don't think the level of sexual coercion is radically different in other industiralized countries.

I'm thinking of a friend of mine -- a grown woman, in her 20s! we were out at a bar, and some guy we'd been talking to through the night forced a kiss and a pawing on her. She was not attracted to him at all, and was revolted by the unwanted intimacy, but somehow didn't know she had the right to push him away. I heard about it later, and was amazed since this woman is not a timid person. But she spoke of it in context of how strongly she has internalized the desire to please others, and also, in a sense, to do what she is told.

I know how many situations I've been in myself where I needed to be able to back some guy up. A girl who is taught to "instantly obey what anybody asks" is being set up for date rape.

User avatar
a different guest
Posts: 620
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 12:13 am
Location: Australia

Postby a different guest » Tue May 17, 2005 11:44 pm

Yes NYC, that quote worried the hell out of me. Two reasons, 1) she said it at all and 2) the SOP school thought this was SUCH a good thing to say they proudly posted it on their website.

Yes young women DO get unwanted attention from blokes - and they need to be taught strategies to deal with it. One workplace when I was younger it was common for men to walk past the young girls and goose them on the behind - a guy tried this on me and I said, VERY loudly, "get your hand off my bum!". The whole office heard, the guy turned beetroot red and I was never goosed again.

I guess growing up with a lot of brothers gave me some advantage. :)

sugarloaf
Posts: 98
Joined: Fri Dec 31, 2004 11:40 am

Kids schools

Postby sugarloaf » Sat May 21, 2005 12:25 pm

Hi Bella,

Thanks for your post. Although the majority of the people here are ex pupils of the childrens schools, I agree with ADG that many of us here also want to hear experiences of people at the adult schools. I?d be interested to hear what you think of the SoP in Australia - but mainly in relation to the kind of allegations that have been levied at the SES here? homophobia and sexism, strict hierarchy, systems of control, bigotry etc etc.

But yes ? my main point in this thread was to find out something of peoples experiences at other SES kids schools around the world. Its pretty clear what happened at st james and st vedast was pretty appalling, by anyones standards.. so I?m wondering what kind of an education people had at other schools.

I don?t even know how many SES/SoP kids schools there are in Aus/NZ, or when they were founded, but would be interesting to hear what they were like, particularly in the early days ? as the ?philosophy? would have been the same as in the UK. May be the way it was applied to small kids was different. Maybe not?

All the best,

SL

PS just saw ross nolans post to you under ?welcome? thread? if you have been considering sending your child to an SoP school in aus ? I imagine you?ve checked it out to see what you think? ? and in the light of the history of St vedast/James, asked them about their history?

User avatar
bella
Posts: 221
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 10:52 am

Postby bella » Tue May 24, 2005 10:19 am

Awww, I feel all warm and fuzzy now. (I looked for a "warm and fuzzy" style emoticon to stick in here, but the closest I found was a butterfly or a bizarro Etch-a-Sketch smiley - so use your imagination) Seriously, I appreciate the openness and willingness to have a conversation about some of this stuff. The board has picked up some steam in the months since I participated semi-regularly, and it appears to be all systems go towards resolution of the St James/Vedast issues, which is at least constructive.

I don't want to appear that I'm ignoring ADG by responding to posts after her, but I've spoken privately to her before, and I'm sure she'll understand if I address her after I get into the other issues. Thanks for the WB, btw. :)

Janneke wrote:So as long as you keep your wits and common sense about you, you'll be fine, I'm sure. Just make sure you don't start believing that anyone you come across is "better" than you, for being more senior in the School. This is a danger. Or maybe this happened to me because I grew up in the School, and couldn't as a child make the distinction between 'being respectful' to older people for their age on the one hand and believing they were better on the other.


To me, this statement by Janneke sums up my thoughts on the running of the adult schools. The philosophy given in the material you are presented with at group can be interpreted by the group member (and the tutor) in quite different ways - this is true of an English course, a Modern History course, a Fine Art course, as well as SOP/SOPP/SES stuff. We're possessive beasts, and mentally insular ones, and we like to think that we have a handle on things "objectively" even when the material we're dealing with is supposed to be filtered through experience and refined. You think "Oh, I know what that's about", before you actually try dealing with it, or putting it into practice. Even after you try dealing with it, or practising it, you often fail to notice the influence your own personality has had on what you've "learned". Tutors at the SOP/SES are guilty of this as well as students, and everyone else on the planet.

Many of the complaints here about tutors and authority figures in the SES (I'm just going to call it the SES from here on in unless I'm specifically talking about the Brisbane SOP) don't recognise this - or if they do, it's seen as a damnation of the organisation because its members are subject to human frailty. Yes, an organisation is its members, but when you're dealing with an organisation whose purpose is the distillation and transmission of information from many static sources, human error and subjectivity comes into play bigtime. By "static sources", I mean from people who are dead and not open to argument on what they've written. That's not the only source of material, but it's a large part.

This might not go down so well, but having a tutor to bounce things off can also make you realise how self-indulgent and delusional you're being about something. I doubt that everyone posting on this message board thinks they're always right about everything. Having a semi-formal situation where you discuss your ideas and experiences with a tutor, in front of a group, sometimes does allow you to see where you're getting all wrapped up in your own (sometimes odd) ideas about what's what. It's not a case of brainwashing, because the idea is for you to talk, and the tutor to listen and ask questions - not lecture you about what your ideas should be. It's like having a best friend who never thinks about nipping off for a cigarette or a cup of coffee while you're talking.

The school I attend has several people who are generally "unlikeable". Their personalities are such that they manage to alienate a good proportion of the school membership. Personally, I think this is a pretty good advertisement for the school - "difficult" people are accepted as easily as "pleasant" people, y'know? The idea is to get past your reactions to these people, and see the message they're delivering (or the humanity they represent), rather than their (sometimes annoying and even ignorant) way of delivering it. If you're unsure about their interpretation, go to the leader. The post (was it NYC?) about the registrar saying "That doesn't concern you at your level" is an example of this. I cringed when I read that, but I have no doubt it happened. If the person in question wasn't trying to bolster herself by feeling superior, she probably thought she was upholding a necessary structure within the school, and trying not to scare someone off by saying "Yes, the women doing second-line work are asked to wear long skirts." Not everyone in the school is a Communications/Psychology major, and not everyone is pleasant, tactful, or even particularly confident. It's absolutely crucial to remember that the tutors are students themselves - sometimes only a year or so "ahead" of the students they're tutoring, often many years ahead, but students nonetheless - with their own tutors.

There is a hierarchy, and as far as I can tell, it's for ease of management and flow of communication. The school I attend is pretty young (about 11 years old), and the school leader is fairly easily accessible. I also know this to be the case at the Sydney school, though, which is considerably older, so if you don't get a satisfactory answer, take it as far as you need to. As Janneke said, someone presenting themselves as "better" or more senior and therefore impenetrable, is only as effective as you allow them to be. The philosophy you hear is the ultimate end-point, not the people you encounter on the way. The hierarchy spares the school leader from getting a million questions about why so-and-so was mean to them in group, or why the noticeboard is looking kinda shabby. It's not supposed to prevent you from communicating as far "up" as you need to go to get satisfaction, but it is supposed to share the load and delegate as much as possible.

Re homophobia: The SES' view on this is similar to the Dalai Lama's, AFAIC. The purpose of sex is reproduction, or celebration of the union of complementary forces (yin/yang, prakriti/purusha etc.). Sex outside this framework is seen as unneccessary and distracting. This includes sex outside marriage and excessive masturbation as well as homosexual sex. Call it puritanical if you like, but it's not singling out homosexual couples as worthy of notice by themselves. By the way, the sexual conduct thing is really only an issue for people in a position of authority within the school, and even then, it depends on your school leader. It's very similar to a Buddhist approach, in my estimation.

Re sexism: Yes, women wear long skirts and men wear suits. No bodies or bottoms to be seen, by jove. Again, this is the case with many Buddhist branches, but you don't often hear such vocal complaints about them. Yes, there is a distinction made between the feminine nature and the masculine nature, and it bears out in practice, in my experience. Child psychologists and behavioural therapists are still arguing this issue, and there are at least as many proponents of the gender difference theory as there are of the equality theories. Anyway, SES embraces the gender difference theory, and uses it in their presentation of a "refined" appearance - a non-provocative, respectful appearance which is evocative of the essential qualities of both genders. By the way, several years ago, I wore jeans to serve tea and coffee because of time constraints, and didn't have a word directed at me. This (dress rules) is something that is said to students considering second-line work (service type activities), but nobody is going to burn you at the stake if you can't manage it sometimes. If you can't manage it EVER because of personal beliefs, then don't do second-line work. Simple.

This is turning into a thesis, and there is still much to be said, but I'll have to knock it off for now, and respond to more later. Oh, one more thing - regarding the education of female children about obedience vs. stranger danger...I have a friend who was schooled in the Sydney day school, and she was educated as to how to say "no" to people making physical demands on her. Sex education at the SOP day schools includes lessons on how to manage abstinence and effective rejection of advances, and frankly, I think that's sadly missing in a lot of sex ed programs operating in other schools.

Eeek, one more addendum to NYC: the response I got when I mentioned this website was what you would expect from any rational person. It was suggested I give my own experiences, as objectively as possible. The allegations of abuse are not being ignored by the SES-afiliated schools, but there's not much me OR anyone else who wasn't there can say to make it any better or clearer. The distinction between international schools and their histories/perceived answerability is probably greater than many people expect.

User avatar
erikdr
Posts: 47
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 7:14 pm
Location: Amsterdam

School attitudes

Postby erikdr » Tue May 24, 2005 6:26 pm

Hi Bella!

Thanks for the elaborate posts, which contain quite some reasonable material. After all, I still manage to maintain friendships with SES students long after I have left.

But in two slippery areas your comparisons are not really to the point, so here we go.

Re homophobia: The SES' view on this is similar to the Dalai Lama's, AFAIC. The purpose of sex is reproduction, or celebration of the union of complementary forces (yin/yang, prakriti/purusha etc.). Sex outside this framework is seen as unneccessary and distracting. This includes sex outside marriage and excessive masturbation as well as homosexual sex. Call it puritanical if you like, but it's not singling out homosexual couples as worthy of notice by themselves. By the way, the sexual conduct thing is really only an issue for people in a position of authority within the school, and even then, it depends on your school leader. It's very similar to a Buddhist approach, in my estimation.


Hits me right on the toe (having become assistant-teacher in Buddhism since my SES time).
1. The Dalai Lama has repeatedly said that he has two groups of sources inside Buddhism. One being some traditional texts from Tibet condeming homosexuality, for reasons like the 'celebration of the union of complementary forces. And the other sources being the original Buddhist texts, not really saying much about any sexuality but it being 'a necessary evil and a distraction from the spiritual life'. Those original texts also calling for universal compassion INdependent of the other person's feeling, gender, opinion etc. And the Dalai Lama then concludes that for him, in any direct meeting with a homosexual, the 2nd group of principes are leading and hence he will not back ANY homophobia by someone calling himself a follower of his!!! :fist:
2. More broadly speaking homophobia is quite a rare thing for any Buddhist movement in the West. One can see it amongst Asians especially in Asia but all of the cases it's mainly cultural.

So the only thing in SES being 'very similar to a Buddhist approach' is that sexuality is seen as a distraction from the spiritual life. Don't try to back homophobia by anything seriously spiritual please, and neither for any puritanism inside SES...

Re sexism: Yes, women wear long skirts and men wear suits. No bodies or bottoms to be seen, by jove. Again, this is the case with many Buddhist branches, but you don't often hear such vocal complaints about them. Yes, there is a distinction made between the feminine nature and the masculine nature, and it bears out in practice, in my experience. Child psychologists and behavioural therapists are still arguing this issue, and there are at least as many proponents of the gender difference theory as there are of the equality theories. Anyway, SES embraces the gender difference theory, and uses it in their presentation of a "refined" appearance - a non-provocative, respectful appearance which is evocative of the essential qualities of both genders.


What we definitely back in Buddhism is a gender difference theory, and a tendency to un-emphasize sexuality for the reasons given above. Also often we back to have separate single-sex activities for a part of the time. But this has not so much to do with a 'distinction between the feminine nature and the masculine nature' as with people studying better when there is no sexual polarisation around.
Moreover, SES sexism goes a lot further and gives DIFFERENT RIGHTS and DIFFERENT OPPORTUNITIES to both genders. You've read before which one is being seen as the 'lower'. Again in some Asian Buddhists this is being found, but there is no backing of it at all in Buddhism's traditional teachings and you don't see much of it in the West.

So as a matter of fact: when next month I go on another teaching spree in an Asian country, one of my main challenges will be to involve ladies more in the work, give them more self-confidence and see that they can reach the same level as men. Something I've not experienced quite a lot in my 8-year old earlier SES 'career'....

So far a humble viewpoint. For the rest your opinions are quite valid, go on with the good work!
With folded palms,

<Erik>

User avatar
a different guest
Posts: 620
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 12:13 am
Location: Australia

Postby a different guest » Wed May 25, 2005 1:58 am

and there are at least as many proponents of the gender difference theory as there are of the equality theories


I beg to differ. Except for the odd dinosaur still lurking in the gender studies deparments of not particularly well regarded universitys, I don't think many people subscribe to the "equality" theory anymore. Males and females are different but EVERYONE has aspects of the "masculine" and "feminine" (for want of better terms) within them. A male is not exclusively "masculine" just as a female is not exclusivly "feminine" - we all have aspects of both and in proportions that vary from person to person.

So what IS important is "equity of access" - no-one should be denied opportunity or rights just because of what shape their genitalia is. But this is exactly what seems to be happening in the children's schools as they reinforce outdated notions of gender.

Bella - there have also been a number of posts about how the St James senior girls school is used as a grooming ground to create "wives" for older SES males. Apparently one of the most important aspects of the curriculum is "tea making" :crazyeyes:

(and oh gee, I WISH Mike would provide us with some better smilies.)

User avatar
bella
Posts: 221
Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2004 10:52 am

Postby bella » Wed May 25, 2005 2:42 am

Moreover, SES sexism goes a lot further and gives DIFFERENT RIGHTS and DIFFERENT OPPORTUNITIES to both genders. You've read before which one is being seen as the 'lower'.


I didn't attend an SOP day school, but I'm curious as to what you consider the different rights and opportunities within the SES, and especially how this is apparently enforced. Do you mean the teaching that women are happiest in the home, and men are happiest in the workforce, or do you mean women are prevented from participating fully in the SES itself?
I guess this can be directed to ADG as well - where is the inequity of access that you have experienced (or heard about from someone who has)? I haven't personally experienced anyone from the school preventing me from doing anything. Is it the teaching of "roles" better suited to either male or female that is the bothersome issue? Or the different curriculum for females and males in the day schools?

I agree that everyone has masculine and feminine aspects - people aren't entirely one or the other, and I haven't been taught that they are. What is taught, though, is indeed that women are happiest in the home - yes, with a husband. It's always followed by acknowledgement that this isn't always practical, and it's never been put to me as an imperative. Perhaps I'd have a different experience of that if I attended a day school - I don't know how well I would have done at "tea-making". :)

As to homosexuality and Buddhism, the lines are drawn between looking at it on a worldly level where gender manifests, and looking at it on a spiritual level where gender is irrelevant. It's my experience that the same holds true for the SES philosophy (the masking of sexuality to avoid distraction is another reason for the long skirts, btw - the idea is to inspire respect, not lust). Ultimately, we're all supposed to be pure consciousness - what bits you have, or where you put them, doesn't matter to your true nature. But getting to a point where you may recognise that true nature is also supposed to be easier if you work within the (natural) laws governing the bits you have.

ADG - do you see it as a problem that gender difference theories in education are seeing boys and girls being offered different ways of learning? "Different" doesn't have to mean "worse" or "less-respected" in our regular secular schools; it's interesting that it does for the St James girls.

As for the allegations of "grooming" those girls to be wives for older SES males...well, that just sounds repugnant. If it was said that the girls were taught about the running of a household and all that being a stay-at-home wife entails, and ALSO had it put to them that a husband attending SES would be nifty...it doesn't sound so bad. Could you direct me to the relevant posts?


Return to “General discussion of SES”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests