A non subserviant girl's opinion-pls read this objectively

Discussion of the children's schools in the UK.
chittani
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 6:03 pm

Postby chittani » Thu Mar 16, 2006 3:08 pm

Bella,

Yes, we have, back in the day. But it's like there is an embarrassment - right, we've said that now, nasty bit over, let's not talk about it any more. I haven't heard about dress code in a long time. As a result it has become more relaxed. Ties optional at group evenings, at least for the younger people.

Not, let me say, that I am desperate to get everyone wearing it. But there is a lack of clarity.

User avatar
Keir
Posts: 177
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 5:04 am
Location: London

Postby Keir » Thu Mar 16, 2006 8:02 pm

Chittani and others,

Can I ask if there had been research into what expectations the boys had been given in the years prior to that experiment about what was expected from a man.

If a boy is brought up to believe that babies are women's work, they might well reach for the speaker as a first point of problem solving. Equally if they are brought up with thesense that it is the male's job to protect the female from unidentified threat or nuisance and yet are not given the wherewithal or confidence to deal effectively with a screaming baby, they are confused and go for what they can control.

Similarly you would have to look at what conditioning the girls had received prior to the experiment. - I dont see many young boys pushing toy prams and dressing 'baby', however advanced we are in our understanding of sexual equality.

I think the problem might be that society for ease of understanding makes men and women 100% masculine or feminine. My personal opinion is that we are all a mixture/balance of both.

Whilst it would be a fascinating proposition to put to a senior male tutor that he had got the buddhi/chitta thing wrong, I would prefer it if he would accept his own balance of buddhi/chitta male/female yin/yang etc etc. Healthier for all concerned imo.

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

Postby NYC » Thu Mar 16, 2006 10:21 pm

Do you seriously think they would implement a long skirts rule to get women to leave the school?


To get a certain TYPE of woman to drop out, yes. It effectively prevents the more assertively egalitarian-minded women from sticking around long enough to have any influence on the teaching. It?s not just modesty and dressiness the school is after. You can be modest and dressy in a pantsuit. The skirt rule is also in place to help enforce a traditional view of gender roles.

don't forget the "guys must wear jacket and tie/suits" rule. There have been plenty of men who've had issues with that one, too


?Jackets and ties? for guys does not have the same implications. It?s just enforcing formality. And if like ADG you don?t want to dress up to study philosophy, then fine, maybe this social org isn?t for you. It is not a parallel to requiring women to wear skirts, which is symbolic of the strict separation of gender roles.

Men at this point don?t have the same role flexibility that women have fought for. Most men are not free to choose whether to work or stay home with the kids. In tandem with that, they don?t have the same flexibility in apparel. They haven?t felt the need to fight for the right to be more like women. Not yet, anyway.

When guys endure the same laughing & finger-pointing and questions about their sexuality that feminists went through, then they?ll be able to wear a breezy skirt on a hot day. Til then they are stuck with pants. And I?m not giving up the role freedom those women who came before me worked so hard to get. If I were willing to be initiated into this org, I?d dress up for service & group night but in an elegant pair of pants. And maybe every so often a skirt if I didn?t have time to change:)

Chittani wrote:it's like there is an embarrassment - right, we've said that now, nasty bit over, let's not talk about it any more. I haven't heard about dress code in a long time. As a result it has become more relaxed.

Well, I suspect this is because many in the org are not personally in agreement with the org?s teaching on gender (or sexuality, for that matter)? do you agree, or do you think it's they are embarrassed by the formality aspect of it?

AntonR
Posts: 87
Joined: Thu Dec 22, 2005 12:32 am

Postby AntonR » Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:08 pm

Post deleted
Last edited by AntonR on Wed May 17, 2006 8:57 am, edited 1 time in total.

Goblinboy
Moderator
Posts: 227
Joined: Mon Jul 12, 2004 4:07 am

Postby Goblinboy » Thu Mar 16, 2006 11:37 pm

AntonR wrote:To take the gender roles further you can imagine the flack I received by the Mavros in Sydney over being not only present but to assist at the birth of my three children.


and what on earth did the Mavros think they were doing presuming to give you advice on ANYTHING concerning children, given they were childless and appeared to have no insight into parenting whatsoever (the stuff concerning kids really riles me, being a parent).

As NYC said in another thread recently, the School always had a position or an answer for everything, regardless of how ill informed.

User avatar
Free Thinker
Posts: 325
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 4:05 am
Location: USA

Postby Free Thinker » Fri Mar 17, 2006 1:44 am

NYC wrote:
Bella wrote:I'm a little confused, FT, about who Joy Dillingham was tutoring when she was the NY school head -- since the groups divide at some unspecified point, she was teaching women only, right? and some other guy was teaching the most senior men?


Ms. Dillingham was not just the head of the women's groups, she was the head of the whole shebang. So whenever there were any senior group events, or residentials where the head was present, she presided over all the meetings. Just like Mr. Steingard does now, and Mr. Broxmeyer did for most of the time I was old enough to participate.

I can't remember who would have tutored the senior men's group - someone who was in the same group as Steingard and Broxmeyer - I'd have to ask my dad or mom. But it was a unique situation since it wasn't like the husband (head) and wife (assistant and head of women's group) like we have now. I think it did the school well to have a female head but I can't see it happening again.

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

Postby NYC » Fri Mar 17, 2006 3:09 am

FT wrote:Ms. Dillingham was not just the head of the women's groups, she was the head of the whole shebang. So whenever there were any senior group events, or residentials where the head was present, she presided over all the meetings.?it was a unique situation since it wasn't like the husband (head) and wife (assistant and head of women's group) like we have now.

And like all the schools have, as far as I know?so what?s the implication? Women can be the chief only if they don?t marry? Nice.

When was Ms. Dillingham?s tenure, FT, do you know?

User avatar
Free Thinker
Posts: 325
Joined: Wed Jan 12, 2005 4:05 am
Location: USA

Postby Free Thinker » Fri Mar 17, 2006 5:18 am

NYC

I'm not 100% correct on the exact dates but here's an estimate. Barry Steingard became the head in 1996 after Neal Broxmeyer died. Neal was the head from about 1991 to 96. Joy was the head before that but I don't know for how long. More than a decade.

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

Postby bella » Fri Mar 17, 2006 10:22 am

NYC - no doubt about there being a push for traditional gender roles, and the long skirts being a part of it. I just don't think someone sat around thinking - "how can we get all those assertively egalitarian-minded women to bugger off? I know, let's make them wear skirts."

I'd say it's more a case of "Yes, we support traditional gender roles. Yes, we believe long skirts for women is in concordance with this. No, we don't much care if you leave because you find this idea abhorrent; your call."

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

Postby NYC » Fri Mar 17, 2006 10:20 pm

Yes, we support traditional gender roles


How exactly does the org encourage traditional gender roles, other than the dress code?

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

Postby a different guest » Fri Mar 17, 2006 11:16 pm

Bella - if they teach you to 'neither accept or reject' then why can't you 'neither accept or reject' the dress code and turn up in a pair of shorts and a tank top?

and if you DO agree that going slightly more formal is ok, what do they make of the age old acceptable dress code in Australia for men of "shorts and long socks'?

:)

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

Postby Alban » Sat Mar 18, 2006 12:13 am

Lets face it, having a dress code in a school of philosophy is just plain stupid.

For a dicipline that encourages one to think ouside the box, insistance on conforming in any way is breaking the ground rules.

Just goes to show, to call it philosophy is misrepresentation of the highest order.

Alban

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

Postby bella » Sat Mar 18, 2006 2:18 pm

NYC wrote:
Yes, we support traditional gender roles


How exactly does the org encourage traditional gender roles, other than the dress code?


Are you serious or taking the piss? I thought you'd been going for awhile. I guess maybe it's just not long enough. The material makes it clear, but the first point of interest is that women oversee the household while men oversee the larger picture - men oversee the direction of the family as a whole. Women are supposed to see the detail, while men are supposed to have a broader and less specific vision. I did say "support", rather than encourage, but it's nonetheless fairly clear what the preferred male-female dynamic is.

If you are seriously asking where the SES draws its lines re men and women and roles, then I can't contribute much further. It's in the material, everywhere, and I just don't have that much time.
Last edited by bella on Sun Mar 19, 2006 1:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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

Postby a different guest » Sun Mar 19, 2006 12:45 am

Bella - there's still the 'shorts and long socks' question. :)

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

Postby bella » Sun Mar 19, 2006 3:41 am

Ack, I'm trying to forget about the shorts and long socks question. So tragic.


Return to “St James and St Vedast”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 12 guests