David Boddy on boys only schools - TES Connect article

Discussion of the children's schools in the UK.
User avatar
morrigan
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 11:06 am

Re: David Boddy on boys only schools - TES Connect article

Postby morrigan » Tue Aug 02, 2011 9:10 pm

JAMR,
I am sure it's just as important for all our life and education to have physical classes as much as reading, writing, maths etc etc. We all need all sorts of things to help us grow up and get our brains working as well as our hearts and rest of our bodies. This is essential for boys and girls, and men and women, and all sorts of people from all over the world, whatever colour we are. By teachers respecting pupils and not bullying them, they learn better to behave better to others. When we have been bullied by adults, we can inherit that and both feel miserable, and do it to others as we grow up.

JAMR
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 6:45 am

Re: David Boddy on boys only schools - TES Connect article

Postby JAMR » Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:32 pm

bluegreen wrote:I was talking about primary school as my son is 5.
I was not making any comments about mixed race schools as I have no experience or knowledge on the subject. My little boy is in a class in a rural school with 22 white boys and 6 white girls. Most of them have never talked to a black person. My son has, many times as my parents have fostered several Zimbabwean kids/students. He has once mentioned their skin colour but only as it hit him about 6 months ago when he noticed, but not in a derogatory way.
I was talking more about ignorance causing prejudice. I could have been talking about dogs. Kids who are raised with dogs go confidently up to any old dog and stroke it. Those who don't, hide behind their mother's skirts. This is an observation. I cannot and do not want to back it up with recent research or statistics as I am merely making conversation.


Bluegreen,
Here is the comment you made, and the one I responded to
If you grow up with black children all around you, you barely notice the colour difference and are less likely to generalise and be a racist. The same goes for genders. I suspect all boys schools are more likely to breed sexists.


Your opinions in this are specific and firm, so I assumed you were able to support these positions.

This has not been my experience. I have heard this observation made many times, most often by people who have not experienced growing up with black children around them. I have also seen it among people who are newly arrived in these circumstances, often they have a different view after a few months or years – like you I will not support this with any evidence, just noting what I have observed. The one thing that seems to get missed by people when they talk about racial mixing is the proportions. Australia has significant racial problems around aboriginal culture, a lot of guilt and attempts to redress past behaviours, but the issue is moderated because out of 20 million inhabitants, less than 5% is Aboriginal. This means that European culture dominates, and in many cases Aboriginals are not represented in many parts of the community. If it were reversed, and 95% of the population were Aboriginal, their culture would be imposed and Europeans would have issues adjusting.

If your child is exposed to occasional black children, the impact is minimal so often there is curiosity, if your child were the minority, they would be forced to adjust.

My kids had some early bad experiences with dogs, and so were very afraid of them, and as you pointed out by getting dogs of our own, we got them over their initial fears. However, they still had no judgement, and assumed that all dogs were as tolerant as our own, so would take liberties with strange dogs and risk being bitten. This is because familiarity and lack of fear are not necessarily justified.

JAMR
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 6:45 am

Re: David Boddy on boys only schools - TES Connect article

Postby JAMR » Wed Aug 03, 2011 12:37 pm

morrigan wrote:JAMR,
I am sure it's just as important for all our life and education to have physical classes as much as reading, writing, maths etc etc. We all need all sorts of things to help us grow up and get our brains working as well as our hearts and rest of our bodies. This is essential for boys and girls, and men and women, and all sorts of people from all over the world, whatever colour we are. By teachers respecting pupils and not bullying them, they learn better to behave better to others. When we have been bullied by adults, we can inherit that and both feel miserable, and do it to others as we grow up.


Hi morrigan, I cannot see what point you are making with this. Are you suggesting that it is neccessary to expose our children to all variety of things, from children of different races, genders, all ranges of classes, and this is necessary to get a well rounded education? I also see that bullying is not a variety of behavior we want them exposed to. Are you suggesting that this is something that happens between the genders, people of different races?

bluegreen
Posts: 95
Joined: Fri Aug 21, 2009 4:42 pm

Re: David Boddy on boys only schools - TES Connect article

Postby bluegreen » Wed Aug 03, 2011 9:23 pm

Your opinions in this are specific and firm, so I assumed you were able to support these positions.


You assumed wrong. I was giving opinions which were open to discussion and I must have worded them with more confidence than I should have (if I were in a court of law). I said "I suspect" boys schools are more likely to breed sexists so I hope my terminology was a little safer there.
Your insights and observations about mixing children of different races are informative and interesting. And about dogs, my experience with my children is the same.
I guess when I was talking about racism, I was not meaning liking or disliking black people or their culture, but the fear or attitudes born of ignorance and inexperience. You can become familiar with them and even feel engulfed by them (if you are in a minority) and decide that you do not like most of the black/white/other, people and culture of the community that you have been invoved with, but would that be racism? Isn't racism a prejudice, thereby meaning you are making a generalisation based on a preconception about something that you have little knowledge of?
Racism is also a feeling of superiority of your own race.
I wonder if children, who have been in a minority or evenly mixed races environment, who grow up to identify more strongly with people of their own colour, actually feel superior.
St James Girls School 1977-1981

JAMR
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 6:45 am

Re: David Boddy on boys only schools - TES Connect article

Postby JAMR » Sun Aug 07, 2011 9:57 am

Bluegreen, you said,

I guess when I was talking about racism, I was not meaning liking or disliking black people or their culture, but the fear or attitudes born of ignorance and inexperience. You can become familiar with them and even feel engulfed by them (if you are in a minority) and decide that you do not like most of the black/white/other, people and culture of the community that you have been invoved with, but would that be racism? Isn't racism a prejudice, thereby meaning you are making a generalisation based on a preconception about something that you have little knowledge of?
Racism is also a feeling of superiority of your own race.


Excellent question. The issue with racism is mostly the moral baggage that goes with the label, regardless of the actual content of the their belief. The definition most often used is when one infers traits along racial lines that are invalid – ie. prejudiced and not based upon the actual facts. However since we are all mostly ignorant of anything but the most superficial facts, and don’t have either first hand knowledge of any differences then any distinction should be racist, regardless of whether we are accidentally right or not.

In Australia there is a policy that people who receive free housing will be evicted on their third behaviour violation. This has been labelled racist because most of the bad behavers are Aboriginal. The minister in charge is arguing that the policy is purely determined upon bad behaviour and not race. However the counter is that most of the bad behavers are Aboriginal, so the policy is indirectly racist – and should therefore be adjusted accordingly.

Its more complex than just this due to social issues among Aborigines etc, that produces more anti-social behaviour, therefore it is argued that their behaviour is also due to how they have been affected by a white dominated and colonised society. Logically this debate can be taken all the way back to the early man who left Africa and colonised the rest of the world some 80 thousand years ago – so its pretty futile.

Underlying all this is that people are not actually looking for the truth for others, only themselves and the power it brings, as power is really what we want. So the debate becomes a political one, rather than trying to work on facts.

I wonder if children, who have been in a minority or evenly mixed races environment, who grow up to identify more strongly with people of their own colour, actually feel superior.


I am not sure how useful it is to call a group superior. Every group appears to want to get the best deal possible, just as any individual does. This seems to bring an idea of being either in a better position than the others to trying to get into a better position relative to the other groups – so rather than being superior its almost a sense of trying to be better off. This occurs because we tend to delineate groups and individuals on various bases, like race, age, gender, ability etc, and this causes a seperation. This then raises the question of whether we should do this or not, and if we are selective about which ones, how do we decide this and is it possible to implement.

bluemoon
Posts: 125
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:52 am

Re: David Boddy on boys only schools - TES Connect article

Postby bluemoon » Mon Aug 08, 2011 6:35 am

JAMR wrote the above post mostly about racism.

I would like to make a point that this Forum is entitled 'General discussions on SES'. I appreciate that various issues come up related to SES but I do wonder JAMR what your interest is in posting long involved musings on various subjects which seem to be taking the discussion away from the SES in quite a lot of cases?

It is not for me to tell you how to use the forum but Daffy, so if you have any comments Daffy I would be interested in your opinion.

Bluemoon
Last edited by bluemoon on Fri May 25, 2012 8:19 am, edited 2 times in total.
SES London, 1990-2009, Female

Blissfully Sleeping
Posts: 19
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 12:40 am

Re: David Boddy on boys only schools - TES Connect article

Postby Blissfully Sleeping » Mon Aug 08, 2011 7:31 am

bluemoon wrote:JAMR wrote the above post mostly about racism.

I would like to make a point that his Forum is entitled 'General discussions on SES'. I appreciate that various issues come up related to SES but I do wonder JAMR what your interest is in posting long involved musings on various subjects which seem to be taking the discussion away from the SES in quite a lot of cases?

It is not for me to tell you how to use the forum but Daffy, so if you have any comments Daffy I would be interested in your opinion.

Interesting name JAMR, a quick google comes up with a meaning 'jammer' and in particular military 'jammers' used for example to block communications between moblie phones. I have wondered what your intentions are here, are you trying to 'block' the forum? Remember many of us have had very negative experiences in SES, but one thing it does seem to lead to is an ability to try to look behind the obvious, and certainly not to take anything at face value. In your case I am wondering what you are up to?

Bluemoon


As a very recent poster, but a longer lurker....Bluemoon, I couldn't agree with you more!

Blissfully Sleeping

JAMR
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 6:45 am

Re: David Boddy on boys only schools - TES Connect article

Postby JAMR » Mon Aug 08, 2011 2:41 pm

Bluemoon, you said,
JAMR wrote the above post mostly about racism.


This looks like you are seeing a red herring under every bed? My response was to comments about racism, as well as sexism, noting that you also had comments about the racist aspect, and it was one in which you jumped to an invalid conclusion because you though you knew enough to be right.

I would like to make a point that his Forum is entitled 'General discussions on SES'. I appreciate that various issues come up related to SES but I do wonder JAMR what your interest is in posting long involved musings on various subjects which seem to be taking the discussion away from the SES in quite a lot of cases?


Most issues here are about issues with groups, in your case it is very strongly the SES. As you can see I have no issue discussing the SES as a group as well as attitudes of those that fight against the SES. Many of these are not very different to issues that men and women have, or between the races. If you can agree on some of the underlying principles, details become clearer.

Interesting name JAMR, a quick google comes up with a meaning 'jammer' and in particular military 'jammers' used for example to block communications between moblie phones. I have wondered what your intentions are here, are you trying to 'block' the forum?


You have quite an imagination, and just so we do not chase even further after straw women, let me give you the correct derivation. JAMR is the name of my pet cat, and he got it because it is the initials of my four children. This is an example of a very common reaction on forums, to find some way to personally undermine the poster when a position starts looking a bit shaky. As I assume you are referring to my comments in another thread, since you are apparently unable to answer my questions or support your position with something rational, finding some way to blacken my intentions is something I expect from our politicians. Just shows how dangerous even google can be if wrongly used.

Remember many of us have had very negative experiences in SES, but one thing it does seem to lead to is an ability to try to look behind the obvious, and certainly not to take anything at face value. In your case I am wondering what you are up to?


You should not have to wonder, read my posts and see if you can answer the direct statements and questions I have posed, something you appear to have had difficulty doing to this point. My interest in your posts is seeing if you can justify the position you have taken that the SES is wrong and your position is right, and should therefore be pursued and corrected. I left the SES because they stifled my individuality and I was not getting enough return to justify this cost. My school life did the same to me, but I had less choice, my worklife also stifles me, but it pays the bills. Most social institutions stifle those who are aware of what is going on, not always an easy perspective. I do not however see the SES as wrong, just as I do not see schools or business as wrong, and myself as right. If you are able to offer a rational justification why the way you wish to impose on the SES is morally better, I am interested in seeing you support this with something substantive.

This has nothing to do with your experience in the SES and I am not suggesting you should not be upset by the SES, or anyone else on this forum. Being aggrieved because a group is pushing you around and has views you disagree with is tough and very common, but its not the same as being morally wrong.

bluemoon
Posts: 125
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:52 am

Re: David Boddy on boys only schools - TES Connect article

Postby bluemoon » Mon Aug 08, 2011 4:54 pm

JAMR wrote:

Most issues here are about issues with groups, in your case it is very strongly the SES. As you can see I have no issue discussing the SES as a group as well as attitudes of those that fight against the SES.


This is not correct. The ONLY issue on this particular forum is the SES/SoP (and whatever other names they call themselves and their linked childrens schools around the world). If you just want to discuss groups in general perhaps you should find another appropriate forum for that. But as I said before it is for Daffy to say what is and isn't acceptible here. I would ask Daffy for a response on this please, when you read this.

You also keep getting other posters mixed up. You mixed up me (Bluemoon) with Woodgreen on another thread and Bluegreen with me too on this thread. I know we are all women - so perhaps to you we are all the same?!!

As for all the rest of your post above....

Thanks for explaining your name.

I am not going to respond to much more except to say that in the thread you seem to be alluding to about the SES and cults I did provide 'substative' backing for my conclusions including recommending a book to you about the raising of feminine energy entitled 'The return of the feminine and the world soul', but you chose to ignore that.

I have asked you a direct question that is all, and you have not actually given me a direct answer, but I presume your post above implies that you do not feel you are 'blocking' the forum?

Bluemoon
Last edited by bluemoon on Fri May 25, 2012 8:21 am, edited 1 time in total.
SES London, 1990-2009, Female

User avatar
morrigan
Posts: 45
Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 11:06 am

Re: David Boddy on boys only schools - TES Connect article

Postby morrigan » Mon Aug 08, 2011 8:40 pm

JAMR wrote:
morrigan wrote:JAMR,
I am sure it's just as important for all our life and education to have physical classes as much as reading, writing, maths etc etc. We all need all sorts of things to help us grow up and get our brains working as well as our hearts and rest of our bodies. This is essential for boys and girls, and men and women, and all sorts of people from all over the world, whatever colour we are. By teachers respecting pupils and not bullying them, they learn better to behave better to others. When we have been bullied by adults, we can inherit that and both feel miserable, and do it to others as we grow up.


Hi morrigan, I cannot see what point you are making with this. Are you suggesting that it is neccessary to expose our children to all variety of things, from children of different races, genders, all ranges of classes, and this is necessary to get a well rounded education? I also see that bullying is not a variety of behavior we want them exposed to. Are you suggesting that this is something that happens between the genders, people of different races?


It's important for children to get good games, not taught them nastily nor bullied by other pupils or teachers, as well as sensible, good teaching so they learn and do all sorts of things - and all of them are better and worse at varying lessons... and IMO this does give them a proper "well-rounded" education as you have said it.

IMO, different genders and different races are not always more of less bullying. But in UK nowadays, parents are not allowed legally to hit and hurt their children, and neither are teachers as they used to often. This is for all sorts or ethnic parents and teachers, and all sorts of masculine and-or feminine.

JAMR
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 6:45 am

Re: David Boddy on boys only schools - TES Connect article

Postby JAMR » Mon Aug 08, 2011 11:44 pm

Bluemoon, you said,

This is not correct. The ONLY issue on this particular forum is the SES/SoP (and whatever other names they call themselves and their linked childrens schools around the world to hide who they really are and their very close links). If you just want to discuss groups in general perhaps you should find another appropriate forum for that.


You have missed my point. I am saying that the issues experienced with SES are due to the way that people are effected by groups and group conformity. I agree that SES has some specific traits and as you have seen, I discuss these. It would certainly help understand what makes SES tick, as well as how one might either address the issues, or move on from them. Also note that much of the issue around SES (that you appear to have) is the way they treat women, and much of this is reflected in wider society than just SES, so once again some perspective on gender outside SES should make understanding better.

Also note, I did not initially raise the racism discussion, someone else did, I just responded, you also weighed into this.

You also keep getting other posters mixed up. You mixed up me (Bluemoon) with Woodgreen on another thread and Bluegreen with me too on this thread. I know we are all women - so perhaps to you we are all the same?!!


I am not good at labels or names as I see them as carrying no value, my only interest is in content. I understand that people get attached to their names. You might imagine that I do as I have such an odd moniker but I usually use my own initials because they are shorter and I am unlikely to forget, however I was not able to register with just 2 letters, so I looked for one I would not forget. So I apologise in advance if you are offended by my disinterest in your monikers, I will try and associate the names better with the ideas they produce. You are also leaping to conclusions about the gender side, I don’t have forum debates with a gender, I have debates with the ideas that are presented.

I am not going to respond to much more except to say that in the thread you seem to be alluding to about the SES and cults I did provide 'substative' backing for my conclusions including recommending a book to you about the raising of feminine energy entitled 'The return of the feminine and the world soul', but you chose to ignore that.


I did not ignore your request for me to study your vision. I suggested that asking me to spend around 20 hours under your direction might be better balanced if you spent just one hour arguing the case for you vision. I do not seriously expect you to invest 20 hours of your time looking at my ideas that come up when I pose them. Your expectation of people to follow your ideas is far more optimistic than mine. This you have still not responded to, yet you use this in this thread as an attack on my lack of response. Did you miss my last post?

I have asked you a direct question that is all, and you have not actually given me a direct answer, but I presume your post above implies that you do not feel you are 'blocking' the forum?


My posts are very focussed on the ideas that are presented. I provide logic where I feel an assertion is not backed up. I ask questions to understand how the assertions are made. If by doing this, I am therefore blocking the poster, then perhaps people should be better able to support their assertions. Do you feel you are blocking this forum by cherry picking my posts for weak points or making assumptions based upon nothing to support them. I spend quite a bit of time pointing out where people have made baseless assumptions, or have not read my posts correctly. Are you ‘blocking’ when you dismiss my school experiences because your assumption was that because I had been in South Africa, I must have been schooled there? I do not see as blocking, its just assumptive, sloppy posting, and very common on forums.
In fact you are behaving in exactly the manner in which the SES heirarchy behaved around the time I woke up to the truth behind the organisation's agenda, and just like them you are trying to twist things around to claim that I have attacked you! It is you that has been trying to crush other peoples experiences and conclusions.


You are making a serious accusation with this, and I cannot see how you can support it. If my ideas cannot stand up to scrutiny, then by all means break them down. I have made far fewer personal comments than I have received from other posters. If you can support your ideas, you will have no issues dealing with my posts. Trying to compare me to the SES approach only serves to make this a more personal discussion (ie. more emotion, less fact) and does nothing to make this a more productive discussion. If you would like to make a case for my posting style being an issue. I suggest you are better off noting that I am indifferent to the person behind the idea and will take the idea on its merits only without consideration for the persons feelings. I do not see forums as small talk, I do this in the actual life, I do not want to waste time in social fluff on a forum site. This is certainly a valid criticism of my posting style. If my questions crush you, then you should look at the way you support them, not at the questions that I pose. If I attack you personally and dismiss them without cause, then make this accusation.

As I said on the other thread, I have no issue debating your vision of the feminine mystique, because this a topic I am interested in, but I expect you to invest enough time to outline the basis of it, before you ask me to spend a big chunk of time researching it. If you cant articulate it, why should I spend time on it?

bluemoon
Posts: 125
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:52 am

Re: David Boddy on boys only schools - TES Connect article

Postby bluemoon » Tue Aug 09, 2011 6:47 am

Re JAMR's above post.

I am not going to respond to your version of things and await Daffy's decision on how this forum should be used if he has any comments.

I don't believe that you have a benign motive in your 'discussions' and like Concernedmum do not intend to engage with you JAMR anymore.

Best wishes, Bluemoon
Last edited by bluemoon on Fri May 25, 2012 8:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
SES London, 1990-2009, Female

JAMR
Posts: 51
Joined: Sat May 21, 2011 6:45 am

Re: David Boddy on boys only schools - TES Connect article

Postby JAMR » Tue Aug 09, 2011 12:26 pm

Bluemoon, you said,
I am not going to respond to your version of things and await Daffy's decision on how this forum should be used if he has any comments.


OK

I don't believe that you have a benign motive in your 'discussions' and like Concernedmum do not intend to engage with you JAMR anymore.


It looks like you are determined to mudsling me with this, however I have probably made the least number of personal comments, I have just done a thorough job of seeing how well supported other peoples views are.

The fact that you cannot or refuse to understand why people don't want to engage with you is the reason you remind me of the way things were orchastrated in SES.


I am well aware of how uncomfortable my posts make other people. They see the dismantling of their ideas as being an attack on them personally.

If I can afford to pay the legal costs I will post my own experiences in SES here one day. Or perhaps I will write a book.


I would be interested in this, however I would also scrutinise it and would not be shy about describing any flaws I saw.

Thank you for showing me how SESised my writing has become through being in the organisation for two decades trying to 'reason' with them, which as you pointed out is futile anyway because of the determination to stick rigidly to ideas they have lived out under Maclaren's powerful influence. You have reminded me that I need to go back to trusting my intuitive, emotional intelligence if I do ever write because the so-called 'logical' breaking down of points and trying to annihilite anothers perspective is not only so very boring it is, IMO, a violent method of communication.


I have never said that people were logical, or that logic was a good thing. Most of what makes human society cohesive is the avoidance of reality and the ability to live in a socially constructed world. Too much direct exposure to reality could certainly fracture human society, however I do not think there is much danger of this ever happening.

When I am off the forums (ie. in real life), I too play a more politically correct game where I am sensitive to other people vulnerabilities, however in forums like this we should be free to step outside all our disguises and deal directly with reality. I am not comfortable mouthing social platitudes and would rather deal with reality. If you were really interested, I could show you just why humans have evolved to avoid reality and why this is why we are able to live in such large, harmonious (relatively) communities, and why this mindset might be critical to the integrity of our society.

As I am interested in the gender discussions, I will see if I can read up on The Return of the Feminine and the World Soul, and see how it stands up to scrutiny. If you are interested I will specifically look at why approaches like this that are weak in the face of a logical de-construction, but work very well as social glue if you just take away the essence of the way they boost peoples confidence.

This quoted passage from the introduction with its feel- good words, will not get by me without scrutiny. I am not against the need for social opiates like this, I just don’t like having someone feed them to me and ask to accept them without question. I have no issue with beautiful prose and inspirational words, but not at the expense of reality.

“Part of the difficulty of understanding and describing the feminine is her very elusive nature, the veils that surround her, as well as our patriarchal repression and denial of her wisdom and power. Also the ancient feminine mysteries, her initiations and teachings, were never written down. She is not easily fixed and defined, but is mysterious in her continual movement and change. She belongs to the silvery light of the moon and its many reflections rather than the harsh glare of masculine sunshine and its rational constructs. She is more easily alluded to and hinted at, expressing the mystery and matrix of creation that is always a wonder rather than something to be explained. So these chapters do not attempt a rational, linear explanation of the feminine, but are more facets of a mirror reflecting different feminine qualities and ways of being.”


My criticism is that there is no empirical way to define this, and much of what he calls elusive is easily explained but its often less complimentary.

bluemoon
Posts: 125
Joined: Sat Dec 26, 2009 9:52 am

Re: David Boddy on boys only schools - TES Connect article

Postby bluemoon » Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:09 pm

Well thank you JAMR for your post above, in particular for the quote from the book I recommended and your comments on it at the end of your post. I rest my case, and as I said I no longer intend to engage with you.

Bluemoon
Last edited by bluemoon on Fri May 25, 2012 8:24 am, edited 1 time in total.
SES London, 1990-2009, Female

woodgreen
Posts: 219
Joined: Wed Feb 03, 2010 7:07 pm

Re: David Boddy on boys only schools - TES Connect article

Postby woodgreen » Tue Aug 09, 2011 7:09 pm

Well said Bluemoon. I was intending to post JAMR to ask him to stop badgering people on the Forum and at the same time tell him not to respond to me or engage in any of my future postings. Not sure if Daffy has a view, but I'm going to leave JAMR's timewasting, pseudo - macho attitude, and his self-indulgence , in the outer cybersphere where it belongs!! (Please note my views JAMR). regards, woodgreen.
Ex-SES Member. (Member for 3 years in late nineties).


Return to “St James and St Vedast”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest