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

Discussion of the children's schools in the UK.
User avatar
Keir
Posts: 177
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2005 5:04 am
Location: London

Postby Keir » Thu Mar 23, 2006 1:24 am

I think what ADG is taking issue with is the black/white logic of saying that since person a has a willy and person b has a vagina that person a should be better trusted to try and make decisions at all times for both person a and b.

If you feel coy about willy/vagina try buddhi/chitta or any other categorisation of man/woman that ignores their humanity and puts them into a box for convenience sake.

I am sure you know that by putting it in to practice when it suits your own sense of reason (buddhi) you are contravening the basic assumptions that are made about the subject and projected as a workable solution in todays world.

But then as a clearly intelligent person you are free to do as you choose and justify it to yourself in whichever way you choose, as is your hubby.

Nothing to do with the SES tho.

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

Postby bella » Thu Mar 23, 2006 4:47 am

Hi Keir,

Of course my putting it into practice when it seems reasonable and struggling with it when it doesn't is not what the SES would consider application. Hence my remark about not yet trying this unequivocally, and so not being in a position to say whether it's a load of bollocks.

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

Postby Keir » Thu Mar 23, 2006 4:59 am

Hi Bella,

Would that be metaphorical 'bollocks' or a collective noun for all male tutors?

heh heh

User avatar
Stanton
Posts: 189
Joined: Mon Mar 21, 2005 12:23 am

Postby Stanton » Thu Mar 23, 2006 10:11 am

I find Bella's responses - often under pressure - both life-giving and warming. Thank you Bella.

chittani
Posts: 145
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 6:03 pm

Postby chittani » Thu Mar 23, 2006 10:31 am

Bella,

You're a better man than I!

Being female clearly doesn't preclude the possession of metaphorical cojones of steel.

But anyway enough of this rough barrack-room banter. There is only one point on which I would take issue. Your general intention to have a go at something that might seem counter-intuitive is laudable. BUT I think you should be careful of the "I haven't tried it unequivocally, so I don't really know yet" argument.

The tradition is "listen, then contemplate, then practice". You cannot (as we are sometimes told in School) just "listen, then practice". That is blind obedience.

The key to "putting into practice" a discipline is that you truly understand what you are doing. And I can see that you have a good handle on that. But it is never the student's fault if they don't understand the principle, or can't find the courage to carry it through. It's the tutor's.

Just like at St James it wasn't the kids' fault for what went wrong. At all. Ever.

Anyone who comes with a question in their heart to a real School, will find their answer.

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

Postby bella » Thu Mar 23, 2006 11:23 am

Chittani - heads-up noted, and thanks. This is something that we've been exposed to for many years, so there's been quite a bit of opportunity to contemplate, and argue, and contemplate, and dip a toe in, and argue some more, and dip another toe in, etc. I haven't yet encountered anything that would lead me to think it was a load of bollocks (think Sex Pistols, Keir), but I have experienced an habitual lack of trust in general. That's mainly what I'm looking at. This is a practice that needs to progress hand in hand with a couple of other practices.

My proverbial testicles might seem firm because I really don't think I have any point to prove. Participating here is a learning curve for me, too.

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

Postby a different guest » Fri Mar 24, 2006 9:18 am

The idea is to genuinely ask for his view and be prepared to try it


And how far would you go with this?

For instance - your example of schooling choices. When we were looking at schools for #1 child I went to the various (state) schools in our area, talked with teachers and parents etc etc and picked up the info packs.

One school (on paper) looked head and shoulders above the others, but my investigation showed differently.

What if DH had insisted on that school?

For the sake of 'taking a shot' at something I should have gone along with his ill-informed choice?

This whole notion reaks of The Dice Man!

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

Postby bella » Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:16 am

ADG, I'm not saying you should do anything. If I investigated a school and found it to be seriously flawed, discussed this with my husband as mentioned, and then he still insisted on sending our kid there for some reason, I'd say there would be something wrong with the process, but yes - the idea is that I'd do it anyway. It's also assumed, as Chittani pointed out, that it's not done simply for the sake of "taking a shot" at something, but also because I think there's some validity to the principle.

I liked The Dice Man, but the sequel sort of sucked.

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

Postby a different guest » Fri Mar 24, 2006 10:48 am

say there would be something wrong with the process, but yes - the idea is that I'd do it anyway.


Even tho this might stuff you child's life? gawd!

but also because I think there's some validity to the principle


Why would you think your partner knows/understands more that you, merely because of his sex?

Btw I didn't like The Dice Man - I thought the idea was scaryly stupid (which, I suspect, was the point)

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

Postby bella » Fri Mar 24, 2006 11:40 pm

It's actually not simply that I'd think he knows/understands more than me, in general. Maybe I haven't made that clear, but maybe I'm not likely to be able to. How do you usually objectively establish "who knows more" in any given situation, if there's disagreement? Anyway, do you get the feeling we're going round in circles?

And yeah, The Dice Man's premise was indeed scarily stupid, which was the point, you're right.

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

Postby a different guest » Sat Mar 25, 2006 2:50 am

Anyway, do you get the feeling we're going round in circles?


I'd say so.

Basically I don't think a relationship/marriage should have a 'boss' with final say. It's about working together as a team.

And if you just happened to be married to a drongo, it would get very Dicemanish.

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

Postby Free Thinker » Sat Mar 25, 2006 6:46 am

But Bella - I was taught that you automatically assume the man knows more and defer to his opinion when you can't agree.

This may be fine when choosing a restaurant at which to eat, but not, for example, when choosing a discipline method for your children and your husband wants to spank.

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

Postby bella » Sat Mar 25, 2006 9:15 am

FT, I've never had it said that "the man knows more." It has been suggested that the guy finds it easier to make decisions not unduly influenced by emotional state, though. I've pretty much eschewed bringing the more esoteric side into this discussion, but I imagine the SES's view on "natural law" and cause and effect would have about as much stand-alone validity as the Immaculate Conception. :)

Anyway, as I said - work in progress.

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

Postby a different guest » Sat Mar 25, 2006 10:48 am

It has been suggested that the guy finds it easier to make decisions not unduly influenced by emotional state,


Making a decision without taking 'emotions' into it is seriously flawed.

For example, you could decide, from a purely logical basis, that a strict and academic school is the best environment for your child as this will give them the marks needed for university entrance into a financial desirable careeer. However an 'emotional' understanding of the child may tell you such an environement would be detrimental to the child. A strict totalitatian environment may well stifle their inate creativity and also not value what the child is actually good at.

Emotional intelligence has equal importance with logical intelligence.

Women these days expect their male partners to have a decent EQ.

I think the SES needs to get their heads out of the 1950s.

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

Postby bella » Sat Mar 25, 2006 1:31 pm

I did say "unduly".


Return to “St James and St Vedast”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests