Debenham and Caldwell in New York

Discussion of the children's schools in the UK.
a different guest

Postby a different guest » Thu Mar 18, 2004 11:38 pm

the annoyed wrote:.

Whether you like it or not, man and female are not the same, this means that they have some differences(and I'm not just talking about the physical form), it is a law of nature, and it will exist no matter how much you try and turn away from it.

Wearing a skirt reminds poeple (especially those in the SES) of the differences between man and women.


If they contstant "reminding" by a dress code that men and women are different then they are not very observant. LOL

Yes men and women are different, but women are not necessarily "giurly" as men are not necessarily "macho". However the SES seems hell bent in enforcing outdated gender stereotypes upon their adherents.

Guest

Postby Guest » Fri Mar 19, 2004 6:54 pm

a different guest wrote:
If they contstant "reminding" by a dress code that men and women are different then they are not very observant. LOL

Yes men and women are different, but women are not necessarily "giurly" as men are not necessarily "macho". However the SES seems hell bent in enforcing outdated gender stereotypes upon their adherents.


o-u-t-d-a-t-e-d g-e-n-d-e-r s-t-e-r-e-o-t-y-p-e-s... right could you list these then! Since you to say that the SES does this and that, but you never seem to point out exaclty what you mean by this.

Scottish men wear kilts, this certainly does not make them 'gurly'. Are you trying to say that just because the SES have a rule that the women wear skirts they are trying to make them gurly? I've explained why women wear skits there, if certain women aren't happy with this minor rule of dress (as it isn't really LIFE changing), they can leave the SES!

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

Postby mgormez » Fri Mar 19, 2004 10:34 pm

Anonymous wrote:I've explained why women wear skits there, if certain women aren't happy with this minor rule of dress (as it isn't really LIFE changing), they can leave the SES!


What if her husband stays in SES. Would that cause a problem?
Mike Gormez

Misty

Postby Misty » Fri Mar 19, 2004 10:45 pm

mgormez wrote:
Anonymous wrote:I've explained why women wear skits there, if certain women aren't happy with this minor rule of dress (as it isn't really LIFE changing), they can leave the SES!


What if her husband stays in SES. Would that cause a problem?


I know a couple where only the wife is a part of the SES, I also know couple where only the male is a part of the SES. It won't cause a problem if the marriage is true, after all couple's can be from different religions and still have a successful marriage.

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

Postby mgormez » Sat Mar 20, 2004 6:18 am

Misty wrote:I know a couple where only the wife is a part of the SES, I also know couple where only the male is a part of the SES. It won't cause a problem if the marriage is true, after all couple's can be from different religions and still have a successful marriage.


Sure, no argument from me there. But I was thinking of the ever increasing implied demands of the SES, as I have read about, which surely must place a burden on any relationship.

Or aren't today's longtime members expected to help out during classes and on the grounds?
Mike Gormez

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

Postby bella » Sat Mar 20, 2004 9:00 am

Mike, members who've spent several years with my school are expected to attend their own group evening, as well as volunteer one other time during the week - "second-line work". This can take the form of helping on a refreshment team on a weekday evening; helping arrange the flowers for the building on a weekday afternoon; helping with accounting and bookkeeping; managing the library; acting as a tutor's assistant for another group; acting as tutor for another group, or cleaning the building for 1.5 hours on a Saturday morning.

Students give the time or times they are available during the week, and a second-line activity is assigned to them for the term. If other commitments change, things can be switched around for the following term. There are weekend residentials for more senior members (3 a year), and 1 week-long residential per year. Many students volunteer for more than one second-line activity, and many others don't volunteer at all. I for one have no problem refusing a request for assistance if it conflicts with family commitments, and I've never been "demoted" or made to feel bad by school leaders. My tutor has suggested I stay home a couple of times on weekend residentials when she knew childcare might be an issue, or when my child had had a fever and might want his mother.

My husband is ok with the time I spend at the school - we talk about it frequently and extensively - although he has absolutely no interest in it, or in anything vaguely religious. He attended the first 7 weeks of the intro course and stopped going, as it wasn't for him. I respect his decision on that, and he respects my decision to continue attending. I do sometimes feel like a request for assistance is too much, or that "they should have known" that wouldn't be something I could do - but really, all it comes down to is whether I have the balls to decline when necessary. And I do.

a different guest

Postby a different guest » Sat Mar 20, 2004 10:39 am

Maybe not all members are as "ballsy" as you Bella. :)

Let me share my concerns with you regarding 2 family members (a married couple) who are members.

The SOP seems to take up an incredible amount of their time. They are barely toghether as a couple as they "tag team" family commitments (they have kids) whilst attending to the SOP or working (husband full time, wife part time). ALL their friends are SOP and friendships outside that seem to have been dropped. Recently they attended a residential interstate where a close family member lived - but despite the fact they had not seen this family member for over two years (a close sibling) they were not allowed out to visit. There was no time. These residential trips are expensive and they are not on a high income. They have also willed that should they die, sole custody of their children will go to a SOP member - despite the fact that there is a large extended family on BOTH sides who would willingly take the children into their families should such a tragedy occur. Their children are enrolled (and I wonder how they can afford the expense) at SOP schools. I have voiced elsewhere my concerns about the curriculum - particularly the gendered nature of the different courses of study for boys and girls. The children also suffer from the prescribed diet - both have eating disorders and suffer from anaemia and gastro-intenstinal problems. And for all this couple have studied this "philosophy" for many years - I see no personal happiness. In fact they look worn out and miserable.

Perhaps the fact that your husband is not SOP provides some a buffer to the SOP taking control of your life - but with my relo's, with them BOTH being in the SOP, they seem to have taken to EVERYTHING that is taught to them heart and sole. And from what I have seen of them - it has done them little (or no) good, at all.

Comments Bella?

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

Postby bella » Sat Mar 20, 2004 2:54 pm

ADG (that's you :), what you describe does sound like a system of operating that would lead family members and friends to worry. I know of a couple or two like that myself. First, may I ask how long they have been attending the SOP? I do have some comments, but some of them would only be relevant if they were long- or short-term members.

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

Postby mgormez » Sat Mar 20, 2004 2:58 pm

Thanks bella & ADG, for the input.
Mike Gormez

a different guest

Postby a different guest » Sat Mar 20, 2004 11:14 pm

Bella, I think they have been members for about 9 years. The family don't get to see them that often (cos they are so busy). They also don't like being questioned about their involvement with the SOP and only ever give very vague answers/details. That is why I have been doing net searches and then found this board.

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

Postby bella » Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:15 am

Cheers, ADG. The couples I have in mind have been attending for about the same amount of time.

I think you're probably right when you suggest my husband acts as a sort of buffer for over-immersion in the school. You're also right when you suggest that I'm a pretty strong-willed person (some people might put it less politely:), as is my husband. I see many examples of unattached people (mainly middle-aged women) spending upwards of 20 hours a week at the school or at school-related activities. Frankly, I assume they either have nothing better to do; they are unable to discuss the school and its expectations with an impartial source, so become excessively absorbed relatively easily; they enjoy what they're doing, and/or they are tending towards a monastic lifestyle, to a degree. I don't actually have any problem with those last couple.

You say your relatives have excluded friends and family from their circle in favour of SOP company. You seem like you've looked into this a bit, so I imagine you're probably familiar with the SOP notion of "good company" - good company can be defined as the ideas, people and sensory input you choose to surround yourself with. This ties in to the notion of always looking for the "finest" in music, literature, discourse, etc. The idea is that negative people, critical people - negative and critical in general, not about the SOP - or people who influence your behaviour negatively (excessive drinking, drugs, gossip, profanity, etc) are not helpful to the goal of self-realisation or enlightenment (and this is intended almost purely in the Hindu sense).

Anyway, it's my experience that some people take the notion of "good company" to an extreme, and take it very literally. When I've asked about how this ties in to established company that might be considered "negative", the intelligent response has been that you should meet the situation as the needs require - meeting family commitments comes into that; as does the idea that you have an equal responsibility to exert some calming influence on people around you, as you do to take care of your own spiritual wellbeing. Some senior members are quite involved in community activities, including their children's school, social (non SOP) groups, sporting groups etc. Some others have chosen to cloister themselves and only venture out of the house when the social occasion or demand has its origins with the SOP. Maybe these folks aren't feeling quite so steady in themselves, and feel the need to be constantly externally reminded of what their ultimate spiritual goal is.

There are some things taught by the school that can be taken too literally, or with blinkered vision, or interpreted within the individual's own system of values, or filtered through some other need that they may not even be aware of at the time. I think excluding non-SOP friends and family is one of these things - "good company" is not meant to suggest that you live in a cave with a few books of scripture and some like-minded people. I'll also mention that I've many times been exposed to the idea that people outside the SOP can be your teachers, too - that a spiritual path such as the one espoused by the SOP is by no means the defining mark of a wise person, or the defining mark of "good company". The thing is that everyone is supposed to be working on the same goals within the SOP, and trying to act in an intelligent and attentive manner - so if you screw up and abuse someone or get cranky or break down in tears for no reason, people within the SOP are (theoretically) more likely to empathise, or attribute non-personal reasons to the behaviour. This appeals to people - it's a bit of a "safe haven" while working on yourself.

As to the "prescribed diet" you mention in relation to their kids - there is no "prescribed diet". There is a certain type of food which is served on residentials, namely fruits, salads, cheeses, nuts, bread and rice. This is supposed to be a "light" way of eating that doesn't contribute to lethargy of body or mind while on residential. Did you know that the school in London used to serve three-course meals that included roast meats? That was apparently part of the "finest of everything" approach. The later eastern influence tipped the scales in favour of a vegetarian diet, though. Having said this, I've never been told what to eat at home, or had it suggested to me that I should change my or my family's diet. I have been told that "different bodies require different things", and the head of school's family serves their child meat when he requests it, and eat it occasionally themselves. The main "prescription" regarding food is to eat only until you are full, and to give full attention to taste when you are eating - this attention will prescribe your diet for you, be it a need for meat, or a need for fruit, or whatever.

As to the interstate residential - no, it is not generally advised for people to go visiting while on residential. This is because the nature of the residential is supposed to be similar to a Christian "retreat", where the person or couple is reflecting, meditating, studying scripture, and performing tasks geared towards the SOP aim of "being in the present moment". Continuity is preferred on these residentials, which is why extended absences are not recommended. I know of people who leave for a couple hours in the afternoon to go have a beer at the pub, and I myself have gone out and bought chocolate :) and fish and chips a couple of times. Going out to the pub isn't advised, for obvious reasons, but I've always mentioned where I was going when I've gone to the shops to buy chocolate or indulge in fish and chips. Your relatives are perfectly free to visit their sibling before or after the residential, though - is there a reason why this isn't possible? Regarding the cost of these residentials, I think I mentioned before that my school will often pick up the cost for those who can't afford it at the time, with the understanding that they will be paid back in instalments over time, as funds permit. I have also declined to attend two residentials because I simply couldn't justify the expense at the time, and my tutor has agreed that it would have been irresponsible of me to go at these times.

I'm sorry to hear that your relatives don't seem to be any happier for their involvement in the school. If I can speak frankly, it could be that they are seeing their involvement with the school as some kind of task they have to "succeed" at, and do everything by the book in hopes of some recognition as "enlightened souls", which is never forthcoming, btw. :) Obviously I can't speculate very far because I don't know them from a bar of soap. The couples like this in my experience are very much into "getting it right", and forget to pay attention to what's going on around them, which is actually the big idea behind the SOP. Pay attention and meet the need of the moment with intelligence and awareness, whatever that need happens to be. It's also said that only you know what that need is, because you're the one in the situation at that time.

I've rambled on for quite long enough - if you have other specific questions, I'd be happy to answer them as best I can from my own experience. I would suggest talking to your relatives - or maybe writing them - and outlining your concerns in a non judgemental way. Remember that they undoubtedly think they are doing what's best for their children and themselves, and in my experience the teachings of the school are indeed very useful in attaining a sense of inner stillness and contentment. Sometimes, though, the application of this teaching needs some work.
Last edited by bella on Wed Mar 31, 2004 12:13 pm, edited 1 time in total.

a different guest

Postby a different guest » Sun Mar 21, 2004 11:15 am

Thank you very much for your detailed response Bella.

You say you know of couples and singles who fit the description of the family members I am concerned about, yet for you your experience with the SOP has overall been good

However YOUR experience of it has always been tempered with a dose of common sense. Yes your tutor has agreed with you not attending a residential, and you've annouced (without censure) that you are ducking out to the pub - but would you say you were a typical member? What is the ratio of members like yourself, with members like the couple I mention?

And if a number of people ARE taking the teachings TOO literally - what are the SOP doing about it? Surely if people are taking things too far, the SOP have a duty to those students to protect them from themselves.

Talking about things that are "fine" - I see this also manifest in my relo's as an obsession with "fine" material things. Not only must the food be "fine", but also the tableware they eat off. They must listen to their Mozart on the best hifi equipment. Despite the fact that my family income is twice theirs, they will spend their money (or rather, increase their debt) to own the finest things money can buy, whilst I am happy to make do with what I have. They have also gone into considerable debt to move closer to the SOP (which always seems to have it's headquarters in the more expensive suburbs).

As for talking to them or writing to them - various family members HAVE tried - but to no avail. But if none of us are "fine", then perhaps that is why they do not listen?

The thing is Bella, while there are people like you who will follow such a beleif system but temper that with their own common senses and strength of character - I would think that the majority of people are the "needy" ones like my relo's - who follow the beleif system to the enth degree, despite the fact that it is deleterious to their health and wellbeing. The fact that the SOP allows this to happen makes it, to me, a cult. A cult that is preying on their "need". Do you think that is too harsh an assesment?

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

Postby bella » Sun Mar 21, 2004 5:35 pm

Yes your tutor has agreed with you not attending a residential, and you've annouced (without censure) that you are ducking out to the pub - but would you say you were a typical member?

Honestly, I don't know. I saw a few out there buying their Cadbury TopDecks.

And if a number of people ARE taking the teachings TOO literally - what are the SOP doing about it? Surely if people are taking things too far, the SOP have a duty to those students to protect them from themselves

I think you have the idea that the SOP keeps close tabs on what members do at home. In my experience, they don't. At all. When the students come to group and talk about how they acted appropriately, and how they remembered unity when dealing with others, the tutor listens and asks about the experience itself. Despite my wishes sometimes, the tutor has never come out and said "Oh my God! You're deluding yourself if you think that's appropriate to the situation! Actually, I think you acted like an ass." They usually just listen, and inject suggestions where it might not be met with defensive staring. In my experience, they really can't and don't interfere overtly or heavily with a student's personal life unless the student asks for advice.

Chances are - and I do believe this - the SOP has little idea of their detailed personal finances or family life, beyond what gets discussed in their evening group. To expect the SOP management to act on behalf of your relatives is expecting too much, and to accuse them of "preying" is, imo, quite harsh. If you are that concerned about them getting themselves into debt, write a letter to the leader of the school in your relatives' city, detailing your worries about their situation. This sounds nuts, but I guarantee you'd get a considered response that would illuminate the SOP's role in their lives.

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

Postby mgormez » Sun Mar 21, 2004 6:33 pm

bella wrote:If you are that concerned about them getting themselves into debt, write a letter to the leader of the school in your relatives' city, detailing your worries about their situation. This sounds nuts, but I guarantee you'd get a considered response that would illuminate the SOP's role in their lives.


Wouldn't such an initiative be perceived as going behind their backs, and possibly worsen the already bad relationship of the family?

Perhaps it is possible to start a mediation with both SOP and non-SOP family members and a professional mediator attending? And if the SOP family doesn't feel embarrassed, they could ask a SOP rep to attend as well.

The last thing you want to do is embarrass and corner them -- no one is fond of that -- because for sure you will lose them then, I'd recon.
Mike Gormez

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

Postby bella » Sun Mar 21, 2004 7:00 pm

Mike, perhaps. My train of thought at the time of writing was that it wouldn't be repeated back to the relos, and I still believe it wouldn't. In any case, it's surely possible for ADG to get some general information about fee policies without having to put her family members on the block. I have no doubt that her concerns about finances would be addressed if she chose to express them openly. It sounds like getting the couple to agree to mediation might be even more difficult, but I do agree that it's a worthwhile idea.

ADG, send me a private message if you want to talk about specific schools or circumstances.
Last edited by bella on Wed Mar 31, 2004 12:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.


Return to “St James and St Vedast”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 46 guests