Modern Education

[Johnny Dangerous]

Out of curiosity JKhedrup, where exactly are kids taught how to use a condom without the other stuff?

If I recall correctly 20 years ago or so in my health classes they in fact specifically spent quite a long time on explaining a healthy sex life, has something changed in education? I don't remember anyone telling me to go out and hop on everything I saw. The condom part was in fact a very small part of sex education..which I have to say at least at that time, was quite sane. I don't say it would live up to dharma standards or ideas about sex and reproduction, but most sources of sex ed I have seen (planned parenthood centers, schools, whatever) supply a broad range of information about healthy and responsible sexuality. This again does not square it with dharma standards by any means, but I have to say the suggestion that kids are just "taught to use a condom" with no context by institutions sounds a bit of embellishment to me, in my experience...it sounds like something abstinence-only education people in this country say as reasons why we shouldn't have sex ed.

P.S. I think it's great to be celibate, or not,...I just thought the about unrolling condoms is something that should be qualified and explained a little.

I've made this suggestion before, but here ya go: For us householders, there is no better recipe for celibacy than getting married and having kids

*dum dum da dum*

Nemo- that story had me laughing!

[JKhedrup]

Yudron the Nyingma Kama wangs sound great. I often joke that my first choice for rebirth would have been Bhutan, second a Tibetan settlement in India and third California. You guys are so fortunate in Cali with a huge variety of really good centres and teachers available. I would move there if it weren't so expensive. I bet Geshe la would consider working in a centre there too-he likes Holland but hates the climate.

Johnny, I will explain-I do not advocate an abstinence only approach, I think that is also irresponsible but I do advocate balance. It maybe depends from school to school. I was in high school in the mid nineties, in a well integrated multicultural public school in Toronto. Students came from a variety of economic backgrounds. Sex ed was taught by outside people, not our teachers. The outside instructors were preaching a 'sex positive' approach. Basically, no one wanted to say anything that might be seen as 'negative' about sex. We were not taught about controlling urges really, how to be in charge of our sexuality. We were simply taught about various methods of contraception, how to avoid STDs etc. There was no heart to heart advice, no lifestyle advice.

In the schools no one takes care of the social education and ethics education of teens. School is at best a way to have a successful career. I am not advocating religious schools, but schools that teach more than just getting ahead, also how to be kind and respinsible. Walk into a high school in the West today and watch how the kids treat the teachers. Then go to a Tibetan school in India, an Indian school, a Thai or Taiwanese school and compare the experience.

[Johnny Dangerous]

Geez, talk about over simplification..there are bad things about traditional cultures too, and the way their children behave. There are also good things about the way "western" kids behave too, as much as every single person likes to do nothing but demonize them.

I get where you're coming from, and agree with some of that, especially about the wider scope of education.

[JKhedrup]

It is not an uninformed opinion. I have been exposed broadly to both systems.

Asian schools have other problems. Taiwan for example, an extremely high suicide rate partly because of emphasis on difficult exams. But that is not what you asked me about.

Most educators I have spoken to in the West are very concerned about the level of education, and what they see as the increasingly bad behaviour of their students, and parents who are too busy working in many cases to help their children. Study after study has shown that in primary and secondary education, Western standards are falling way behind. Our universities are still quite good, but in the US for example how many families can afford university? In Western countries, professions demanding high levels of education are increasingly filled by immigrants or the children of immigrants. My friend who studies engineering at U of T told me most of his tutorials were done in Chinese because he was one of 2 or 3 native English speakers in the whole program.

Obama stated in a widely published speech very clearly that America was falling behind in this regard. In short, of course there are exceptions but the general trend has been noted by many. I am just calling it like I see it.

I am only 32, it is not that long since I was a Western kid. I was not well behaved, nor were most of my peers. We weren't criminals either, but could have accomplished much more with discipline. I had great parents, but the outside influences were so strong there was onlt so much they could do-insist I take summer jobs, insist I finish an undergrad degree.

[Indrajala]

Most educators I have spoken to in the West are very concerned about the level of education, and what they see as the increasingly bad behaviour of their students, and parents who are too busy working in many cases to help their children.

As we all know teachers can't physically discipline their students. If all you can do is snap at the students or send them out of the class (which might be rewarding for them to sit in the hallway or take a stroll down to the office), then they'll never learn. I'm not advocating hurting anyone, but physical punishment in moderation used to and still does produce well disciplined and focused youth. In retrospect this is something I needed as a boy but never got. I had a really hard time keeping a part time job because I lacked discipline growing up.

One other major reason why Asian youth are better disciplined and more studious than their counterparts in many western countries is the absence of feminism. The family model of having a mother at home plus perhaps a grandparent or two ensures sufficient parenting and care. Even in the absence of marital love, parents are more likely to stick together for the well-being of the children. There are less single parent families. Single parent families are more likely to produce delinquent juveniles (I know why this is from experience).

A lot of the social ills that I grew up with like drugs just don't exist in places like Japan and Taiwan. Teenage pregnancies happen, but not enough to warrant daycare programs in high schools!

They have other problems like bullying, pressure and stress, but nevertheless they do a lot of things right. Their family models are superior to what generally the west presently has, largely because they are free of feminism. Being a full-time mother and caregiver is seen as virtuous and honourable. Being able to discipline your children, physically if necessary, is also a point to their credit. I believe all this produces stable families and consequently stable youth.

After being away from Canada for some years I've come to think Western societies (or at least Canada) really need to actively purge feminism, among other deficient and harmful ideologies, from the social fabric and return to traditional models of family, education and childrearing. The alternative is a whole long list of social ills that accompany broken families and undisciplined youth. Filial piety and general respect for teachers and elders is an important virtue that we simply don't seem to have much of any longer thanks to excessive nanny-like sentiments of intellectuals and feminism.

[uan]

I've come to think Western societies (or at least Canada) really need to actively purge feminism, among other deficient and harmful ideologies, from the social fabric and return to traditional models of family, education and childrearing. The alternative is a whole long list of social ills that accompany broken families and undisciplined youth. Filial piety and general respect for teachers and elders is an important virtue that we simply don't seem to have much of any longer thanks to excessive nanny-like sentiments of intellectuals and feminism.

Humor alert: Thankfully the Buddha taught during the time of the great flowering of feminism in India in 600 BCE or else the whole idea of suffering and Samsara would have just fallen flat.

The whole point of Samsara is that all societies create suffering. Whether women are kept barefoot and pregnant or not doesn't cease suffering, or even "lessen" it. It may allow for some to feel better personally about their own personal concepts regarding the relative suffering present today in the Samsara we are experiencing, but that's about the extent of it.

There's this underlying idea behind blaming feminism that "men" and "elders" somehow provide the wisdom a society needs to be healthy and nurturing. As if men and elders aren't full of deluded thoughts of their own. Look at Saudi Arabia as an example of a society where there is zero feminism, much filial piety, and yet it still has major, major issues. North Korean is another country with very little feminism - very little any-ism in fact. But not a lot of juvenile delinquents having sex and doing drugs, so it can't be too bad.

And, yes, I am using an argument adsurdum here.

[Indrajala]

Humor alert: Thankfully the Buddha taught during the time of the great flowering of feminism in India in 600 BCE or else the whole idea of suffering and Samsara would have just fallen flat.

There was no flowering of feminism at the time. Feminism is a modern western concept.

The whole point of Samsara is that all societies create suffering. Whether women are kept barefoot and pregnant or not doesn't cease suffering, or even "lessen" it. It may allow for some to feel better personally about their own personal concepts regarding the relative suffering present today in the Samsara we are experiencing, but that's about the extent of it.

This isn't really relevant to the discussion. Such fatalism entails that everyone, man and woman, should be renunciates seeking liberation, foregoing all parental and social duties. However, that's not realistic and will never happen.

Look at Saudi Arabia as an example of a society where there is zero feminism, much filial piety, and yet it still has major, major issues.

Look at Japan where 70% of women leave work to become full-time caregivers: social stability and no drug problem. Little crime and safe streets.

And, yes, I am using an argument adsurdum here.

I really don't understand what you're trying to get at to be honest.

[uan]

I really don't understand what you're trying to get at to be honest.

You state that the west needs to purge feminism as a way to address society's ills: "really need to actively purge feminism". Feminism didn't cause the ills of western society, nor will purging feminism from society cure anything. Even Japan has it's fair share of social ills. Little crime and safe streets are not a metric of a healthy society - Japan has people dropping dead of overwork, among other things. PR China has little crime and safe streets too, especially compared to the west. Not a model of society to I'd hold up to emulate (though I don't demonize the Chinese people). There was no feminism in India during the time of the Buddha. Probably no rampant drug use among teenagers or anything that resembles what we today consider major issues facing our society. Yet the Buddha identified the cause of suffering as Samsara. He didn't say if we reinforce filial piety that would bring an end to suffering; he didn't say to bring back traditional models of family, education and child rearing as some kind of threefold path (sounds a bit like Confucius tbh).

The point is it wasn't better before. It's not worse now than it's ever been. Samsara has always been samsara. Some of feminism may be misguided, but not about allowing women the freedom to choose their own way, their own life. Demonizing feminism as some kind of cause of anything, in a Buddhist context (and we are on a Buddhist forum), is absurd.

[Indrajala]

You state that the west needs to purge feminism as a way to address society's ills: "really need to actively purge feminism". Feminism didn't cause the ills of western society, nor will purging feminism from society cure anything.

I never said it caused all the ills of western societies. Only that it has disrupted families and gave rise to various social problems that could have been avoided if former models had been more or less left as they were.

In the absence of feminism you'd have less single parent families and hence a lot less of the problems that are statistically associated with youth brought up in such circumstances. This is a logical conclusion.

Even Japan has it's fair share of social ills. Little crime and safe streets are not a metric of a healthy society - Japan has people dropping dead of overwork, among other things.

You can get on any bus in Japan and not be harassed by junkies and other types of dodgy figures. I found this quite refreshing as compared to where I come from, where such things are common and lead people to buy their own cars to avoid taking public transport. It begs the question why Japan, and other places like Taiwan and Korea, don't suffer the same social ills as commonly found in western countries. What didn't they undergo? Feminism. They have stable families and children are brought up in a disciplined manner. They can't get into drugs because they're unavailable and moreover both their elders and peers would never tolerate such things. This is quite different from many western countries where taking drugs as a teenager and actively disrespecting authority is seen as cool.

The issue of suicide and so on are indeed serious issues, but are have been addressed by insisting companies send their staff home at a reasonable hour.

Yet the Buddha identified the cause of suffering as Samsara. He didn't say if we reinforce filial piety that would bring an end to suffering; he didn't say to bring back traditional models of family, education and child rearing as some kind of threefold path (sounds a bit like Confucius tbh).

We still have to live in the world though unless we're renunciates living in the bush. The fatalism you propose here would let a society fall into ruin just because it is saṃsāra.

Well, the real world needs to be considered and addressed, especially if you want Buddhism to survive from generation to generation. We can't be selfish and think that since we're in saṃsāra we can dismiss the well-being of future generations.

I really shouldn't have to even say that. This is common sense.

Demonizing feminism as some kind of cause of anything, in a Buddhist context (and we are on a Buddhist forum), is absurd.

No it isn't. For every cause there is an effect.

[Astus]

The idea that feminism is the source of undisciplined youth in Canada sounds very strange. I haven't been to many places but in the EU, where the equality of sexes is a core value, I haven't heard of any country where public transport is unsafe or that travellers are harassed by unruly people. There are incidents, sure, but it's not normal.

Blaming women for not staying home for a larger social problem sounds to me very prejudiced and misogynistic.

The society in general should accept responsibility for children who are all taught at schools. Schools could teach correct behaviour. Films and other media could teach it too. In fact, we could say that since mostly men are the writers of TV programmes and computers games they cause the trouble.

[Indrajala]

Blaming women for not staying home for a larger social problem sounds to me very prejudiced and misogynistic.

Feminism is not just a matter of putting women to work in an industrial economy as paid employees.

As I have pointed out above, it is understood that, statistically, single parent families are more likely to produce problematic youth than two-parent families. Feminist ideas about the disposability of males, and even in some cases the demonization of males as aggressive and unsuitable for parenthood, have no doubt contributed to the decline of stable family arrangements. It is perfectly acceptable in many places for a woman to cast out her husband from the family and demand monthly payments.

This indeed happens. A lot. Children in such circumstances will be affected in adverse ways. I know this from experience and observation.

Moreover, with women being put to work there is less time for care and parenting of children. Children are often left in daycares rather than be reared by their own mothers. Children can easily go home to an empty house where they are free to do as they please.

In the long-term I believe this helps to explain a number of social problems, which start early with undisciplined youth who are neglected by their families. The social problems my country faces now didn't exist two generations ago. So what happened in that time? Feminism was one big game changer and quite a harmful one at that.

[uan]

We still have to live in the world though unless we're renunciates living in the bush. The fatalism you propose here would let a society fall into ruin just because it is saṃsāra.

Well, the real world needs to be considered and addressed, especially if you want Buddhism to survive from generation to generation. We can't be selfish and think that since we're in saṃsāra we can dismiss the well-being of future generations.

I really shouldn't have to even say that. This is common sense.

After I posted, I realize that my response to you could come off as fatalistic. But I don't feel that way at all. I would actually propose approaching the issue in a Buddhist manner - with compassion and wisdom and finding win-win solutions. I would talk to people, but more importantly, listen to people. Basically a bottom up approach. Your recommendation is a top down approach and relies on pinpointing a single variable as being the main culprit "feminism".

You say we need more two parent households or at least having one parent stay home. That's a good thing, I'd agree. But how to achieve it and what are the actual barriers? For starters, perhaps men can choose to stay home to rear their children. Perhaps if we didn't have an economy that forces both parents to work full time just to get by, that would be something. Many African American families have single mother households because black men are targeted, especially the lower class, by industrial-prison complex.

You also have many poor people having children out of wedlock because our society doesn't want to teach responsible sexuality. As Kim said in the Climate Change thread (iirc), education reduces population. Poor people, in the US at least, have horrible education, nor are they encouraged to dream of getting one. Especially for women. That's one area where feminism plays a huge positive role - trying to get women better educated.

There are two parts to your stated position. A return to two parent families, probably a move away from the nuclear family that became prevalent after WWII and the economic boom and expansion (in the US). I think a call to reenforce family values is good. But the second part of your position - that "feminism" is the cause (and you haven't said "poverty" "racism" "economic disparity" etc.). Feminism is a small part of things, and only a small portion of feminism is probably even problematic. But I guess it's a banner that's easy to fly up a flag pole for people to get around.

For disclosure, I'm one half of a two parent family and I have stayed home to help raise our son. I am also working and my wife stays home. There's an economic hit for our choice, but it's worthwhile, though it can be very very stressful at times.

[Astus]

Huseng,

We may have different understanding of what feminism is about. I see it as the equality of sexes and not the superiority of women. Parenting is a job for fathers and mothers alike. It is in fact the disregard of the idea of equality that you can say mothers should stay at home. Why not the fathers? Why not try to find a system that is actually beneficial for the children and parents as well? Women are not better parents than men. Taking care of children is not a matter of which reproductive organ one has.

[Indrajala]

We may have different understanding of what feminism is about. I see it as the equality of sexes and not the superiority of women.

Feminism is diverse, but you should be aware that at least some of its popular voices are hostile to men and paint them as disposable and even undesirable in families. Such sentiments allow for husbands to be easily chucked out of the home and robbed of their wealth. This happens a lot in North America.

Some feminists even promote single mother families. Again, this statistically leads to a lot of social ills that could otherwise be avoided.

It is in fact the disregard of the idea of equality that you can say mothers should stay at home. Why not the fathers?

Well, in a preindustrial agricultural setting this wasn't an issue as both parents generally stayed at home (except for professions where one party was away for periods of time) because most work was to be done there. In the present day, however, things have changed.

In the past, as now, there were perceived inequalities between men and women, though some of these are unavoidable. Certain professions are only realistically done by males (policing and fire fighting come to mind).

Women are physically suited for rearing infants (men cannot breastfeed), and reasonably some aspects of parenting can only be done by women while other aspects by men.

Why not try to find a system that is actually beneficial for the children and parents as well? Women are not better parents than men. Taking care of children is not a matter of which reproductive organ one has.

Sure, but my point is that, generally speaking, feminism as it is understood and promoted in North America sees men as disposable and quite often undesirable. It isn't about just letting Mom go to work (that's quite simple and myopic really).

It gives free license to women to behave in any way they wish, while stating that anyone who would say otherwise is a misogynist and/or denying them their fundamental rights.

Actually, the success of feminism is perhaps best understood to be a result of giving people what they desire, rather than promoting what is realistically best for all parties.

You demand the right to be independent of collective concerns, and to earn one's own personal income with which to spend as one sees fit (the growth of the cosmetics and fashion industry in the last few decades is in no doubt a result of women earning their own incomes), all the while saying such an approach to life is both commendable and just. Those who would challenge such arrangements are easily silenced with scorn and accusations of intolerance and sexism.

In reality, it is an ideology catering to passions and ill-will, rather than concern for the collective well-being of society. The needs of the few are placed in the forefront ahead of the long-term well-being of the greater whole. One might cry on about inequalities, but if you want to talk about inequalities how about all the men who die in wars, or work dangerous construction jobs? How many men were drafted in WWII in comparison to women?

[Astus]

I understand that there are people who are against men. I believe that is a minority since every major nation in the world is still patriarchal, including North America.

While men can't breastfeed, it is only important in the first year of a baby's life, and there are many other things with a baby parents have to do. There are women soldiers and police officers, so I don't think they are necessarily excluded from those professions.

feminism as it is understood and promoted in North America sees men as disposable and quite often undesirable

That's a very radical form of feminism, hardly the mainstream.

It gives free license to women to behave in any way they wish

What special rules should apply to women that are not equally required of men? And why?

In reality, it is an ideology catering to passions and ill-will, rather than concern for the collective well-being of society. The needs of the few are placed in the forefront ahead of the long-term well-being of the greater whole. One might cry on about inequalities, but if you want to talk about inequalities how about all the men who die in wars, or work dangerous construction jobs? How many men were drafted in WWII in comparison to women?

As I said, feminism generally is the idea of the equality of sexes. How is that an elitist view? And yes, men are also victims of gender bias.

[Johnny Dangerous]

"Feminism" is a really wide range of thought. Everything from pro-business "girl get ahead" stuff to socialist ideas of womens liberation being tied in large part to class, to the classical stereotype of obsession with patriarchy are called "feminist". Put these people in a room together and they won't agree on anything.

Pointing at something you don't like, and calling it feminism is a poor argument, especially when it does not even come close to reflecting the wide range of views that fall within that category.

"purge feminism"?

Man, time for a forum break lol.

[Indrajala]

It gives free license to women to behave in any way they wish

What special rules should apply to women that are not equally required of men? And why?

When mothers went to work one income was enough. Following this housing prices eventually came to reflect dual incomes because they could charge more (energy costs are also a factor, but in the realm of hallucinated fiat currency I believe my point here still makes sense).

Also, at the same time, the cosmetics and fashion industries developed. Neither of these are really beneficial or necessary to society. These industries cater to women. As far as I know, women spend more on cosmetics and clothing than men generally do.

Men can waste money on stuff as well, but putting women to work in an industrial economy instead of letting them raise their children and maintain a household in order to pay for senseless industries and inflated housing prices was a bad trade.

As I said, feminism generally is the idea of the equality of sexes. How is that an elitist view? And yes, men are also victims of gender bias.

It isn't so simple as biases and subjective value judgements. In real life men are subject to a lot of horrors and pains that women are not (the opposite holds true too, but, comparatively speaking, millions of men having to die in trenches instead of women makes a lack of universal suffrage look like a minor issue). Men get drafted, die in foolish wars and/or come home missing genitals or limbs. Men work a lot of the dangerous but necessary jobs in a given society (policing comes to mind).

There is no equality in that sense. Men and women are not equal in various ways.

[Indrajala]

Pointing at something you don't like, and calling it feminism is a poor argument, especially when it does not even come close to reflecting the wide range of views that fall within that category.

Perhaps you should read what I've actually wrote and address some of the specific points you disagree with, and then we might have fruitful discussion.

[Astus]

Men can waste money on stuff as well, but putting women to work in an industrial economy instead of letting them raise their children and maintain a household in order to pay for senseless industries and inflated housing prices was a bad trade.

That has a lot more to tell about the whole social economics and expectations then individual women. Did you know that men had make up and fancy dress before the Enlightenment?

There is no equality in that sense. Men and women are not equal in various ways.

There is no complete equality now, that is true, never said there is. The point of feminist movements was and still is to work on achieving equality. Plus, in a developed country very few men ever go to wars or work in hazardous environments.

[Jikan]

Sure, but my point is that, generally speaking, feminism as it is understood and promoted in North America sees men as disposable and quite often undesirable. It isn't about just letting Mom go to work (that's quite simple and myopic really).

It gives free license to women to behave in any way they wish, while stating that anyone who would say otherwise is a misogynist and/or denying them their fundamental rights.

Actually, the success of feminism is perhaps best understood to be a result of giving people what they desire, rather than promoting what is realistically best for all parties.

You demand the right to be independent of collective concerns, and to earn one's own personal income with which to spend as one sees fit (the growth of the cosmetics and fashion industry in the last few decades is in no doubt a result of women earning their own incomes), all the while saying such an approach to life is both commendable and just. Those who would challenge such arrangements are easily silenced with scorn and accusations of intolerance and sexism.

In reality, it is an ideology catering to passions and ill-will, rather than concern for the collective well-being of society. The needs of the few are placed in the forefront ahead of the long-term well-being of the greater whole. One might cry on about inequalities, but if you want to talk about inequalities how about all the men who die in wars, or work dangerous construction jobs? How many men were drafted in WWII in comparison to women?

Would you please name some names here? That is, be specific about which feminists do as you describe: giving "free license to women to behave in any way they wish," for instance. It would be particularly helpful if you could substantiate your claim that this is how feminist discourses function in mainstream North America.

Your generalizations are, to be polite, wildly implausible and quite reactionary absent such substance.