a different guest wrote:Yes, and it's the 'finer' details that are so worrying. For a start you might like to read the student testimonials on the JC site (girls 10 years old) about how wonderful it was to have the special lessons in 'obeying'.
You mean http://johncolet.nsw.edu.au/Articles/se ... sophy.html which specifically gives quotes on both forgiveness and obedience, in particular a practical exercise on performing secrets acts of service for another student chosen at random.
It is provided as one of a limited examples of lessons at the school.
I would question why they make a gender distinction of senior girls philosophy, as it could be taken that senior boys philosophy is somehow different.
With only a single example, however, it would be difficult to draw any conclusions or comparsions between them; any such attempt would be pure conjecture (without additional information).
For example, the lessons on forgiveness and obedience: there is nothing to suggest that they do not give the same lessons to boys, and certainly nothing in the quotes about females being obedient to males.
The quotes talk about children obeying, adults obeying and everyone obeying (none gender specific). It talks about obeying laws (or you go to jail), road rules, and the Ten Commandments.
Is there something in the quotes that I am missing? Is there anything in there to suggest gender inequality (other than why they feel the need to distinguish girls philosopy)? Or have you made an assumption (perhaps based on other knowledge), that somehow the obedience part (and the forgiveness part???) applies more to girls than boys?
I presume they would teach the same things to boys (or do you have evidence that they teach boys _not_ to obey laws, road rules or the Ten Commandments?).
If generally okay with laws and road rules, but not so sure about the Ten Commandments. Which version do they mean -- Jewish, Islamic, Catholic, Christian Protestant, or one of the various minor sects? The 10C does have gender bias (coveting wives, but not husbands), but then again the 10C also supports slavery (so my son will learn he is not allowed to covet his neighbours slaves -- just great!)
Personally, I prefer to religiously follow the Pentabarf (the Five Commandments).
a different guest wrote:For example, whilst there may be government schools that include pants in girl uniforms, are there any that allow skirts/tunics for boys?
Now you're being silly
Actually, a response of incredulousness to such as suggestion is purely cultural conditioning.
There is nothing inherently silly about males wearing skirt or tunic type clothing -- in fact historically it was common. (My wife was commently recently on the skirts worn in Ray Harryhausen's Jason and the Argonauts).
Trousers have only been in use in the west since around 16th century, and there are still many counter examples these days -- scottish kilts, priestly robes, nightshirts, etc.
What does this mean however? Does it mean that John Colet's policy of male staff to wear tie and shirt, and females wearing skirts (which they are certainly not alone in -- I have seen corporate organisations, such as the CBA, with the same rules for their staff) is "proscribing current cultural standards of good attire" (with no comment on what that standard is and being agnostic as to it's equality), or a "promulgation of gender discrimination"?
Not exactly the same, but it reminded me of a school policy I once read elsewhere (but I think JC is the same) of no unnaturally coloured hair at the school -- I wonder what they would do if I turned up with _my_ hair coloured blue? If I choose to colour my son's hair blue what has that got to do with education?
(For the record, I did turn up at my son's childcare with blue hair for a while -- the kids loved it.)