• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Teach Children Tradition Gender Roles?

Should traditional gender and marriage roles be taught in school?

  • Total voters
    51
Fiddytree said:
The thing is, though, once you see where little Stacie is going to be "programmed" into going, what she is going to be taught, in comparison with the boys, it's awfully prohibitive. The more explicit it is, the more restrictive their life can get.
Click to expand...

Disagree. It's about gender roles, not life training. I doubt that it's encouraging women to abandon algebra and calculus, assuming that all the math a woman needs to know is the difference between a teaspoon and a tablespoon, or fractions so that they don't put 1/4 cup of flour in a recipe as opposed to 1/2.

Gender role classes isn't cutting women off at the knees. They still have the same ceiling they would've had before.
 
Redress said:
GOP lawmaker: Teach grade-school classes on traditional gender roles - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room



So, the question would be do you think we should teach a class similar to what Gingrey is suggesting, promoting traditional gender roles and marriage roles?
Click to expand...

I wish it wasn't necessary, but since many modern mothers and fathers have all but abandoned their parental roles in shaping the character and minds of their offspring it seems some body has to fill the vacuum. That doesn't mean that stereotypes should be taught or promoted, but it does mean that young people need some help in understanding what it means to be a responsible and respected man or woman in civilized society.
 
Gipper said:
Okay, yeah, I give you that - because of the word "tradition".

However, just because something is "traditional", doesn't make it right or best. Lots of tradition in the world's past were needlessly cruel and abhorrent by today's standards and ethics.
Click to expand...

Sigh..no.

The word tradition has nothing to do with my argument. Each part of what makes traditional roles as we know them today have a history and its important to consider the history before simply deciding if something is sexist or not. Much of it changed over time on how people thought of it and today many people feel much of it brings forth the strengths of each member of the relationship to make for a stronger home for the child. There is really nothing sexist about that, Gipper. Is it perhaps misguided? I couldn't say, but it's not sexist.
 
DVSentinel said:
Absolutely.

All schools should also have dress codes like either the Catholic schools or the Japanese schools.
Click to expand...
Yes, because there isn't a single adolescent alive that enjoys expressing themselves through clothing.
 
Gipper said:
Disagree. It's about gender roles, not life training. I doubt that it's encouraging women to abandon algebra and calculus, assuming that all the math a woman needs to know is the difference between a teaspoon and a tablespoon, or fractions so that they don't put 1/4 cup of flour in a recipe as opposed to 1/2.

Gender role classes isn't cutting women off at the knees. They still have the same ceiling they would've had before.
Click to expand...

It depends on what "teaching gender roles" actually means. If women were pre-programmed to take classes X, Y, Z during their formative years in adolescence, and males were to take courses A, B, C in their formative years as they had in the past, it is to develop a sense of life training. If semester and quarter plans include a step-by-step goal for what Stacie or Jimmy can do during these years, this furthers the intention.

Hey, I'm just giving you what was actually done in the recent past, when they thought it was just natural.
 
So what traditional roles would they be taught? This **** is ****ing vague.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
Absolutely, it would solve a lot of problems in this country. The Feminist Movement set us back in morality as women were no longer in the home, Father's are also a problem because they are non-existent in children's lives a lot of the time.
Click to expand...
What exactly is immoral about egalitarianism and equality of opportunity?
 
Henrin said:
Sigh..no.

The word tradition has nothing to do with my argument. Each part of what makes traditional roles as we know them today have a history and its important to consider the history before simply deciding if something is sexist or not. Much of it changed over time on how people thought of it and today many people feel much of it brings forth the strengths of each member of the relationship to make for a stronger home for the child. There is really nothing sexist about that, Gipper. Is it perhaps misguided? I couldn't say, but it's not sexist.
Click to expand...

I guess I just find it sexist when an institution assumes that I'm predisposed to be a "breadwinner" and pushes me in that direction. If I was a girl, that assumes I'm predisposed to finish high school and marry my quarterback boyfriend immediately or go to college for the specific reason of finding a husband.

What would happen to girls in a classroom that purports and emphasizes "gender roles"? I'm envisioning something along the lines of lessons in etiquette, household chores, and something akin to "cotillion".

Slightly insulting.
 
davidtaylorjr said:
Absolutely, it would solve a lot of problems in this country. The Feminist Movement set us back in morality as women were no longer in the home, Father's are also a problem because they are non-existent in children's lives a lot of the time.
Click to expand...

Set us back in morality? Would you mind explaining how?
 
CanadaJohn said:
I wish it wasn't necessary, but since many modern mothers and fathers have all but abandoned their parental roles in shaping the character and minds of their offspring it seems some body has to fill the vacuum. That doesn't mean that stereotypes should be taught or promoted, but it does mean that young people need some help in understanding what it means to be a responsible and respected man or woman in civilized society.
Click to expand...

The bolded...isn't that kinda completely different than gender roles? Where do gender roles and "responsible and respected" coincide?
 
Redress said:
...
So, the question would be do you think we should teach a class similar to what Gingrey is suggesting, promoting traditional gender roles and marriage roles?
Click to expand...
What does it mean “to teach traditional gender roles”?
And how are you going to do that w/o tell a lot of children they are coming from bad families?
 
Gipper said:
I guess I just find it sexist when an institution assumes that I'm predisposed to be a "breadwinner" and pushes me in that direction. If I was a girl, that assumes I'm predisposed to finish high school and marry my quarterback boyfriend immediately or go to college for the specific reason of finding a husband.

What would happen to girls in a classroom that purports and emphasizes "gender roles"? I'm envisioning something along the lines of lessons in etiquette, household chores, and something akin to "cotillion".

Slightly insulting.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that most gender roles are archaic. Women cleaned the house because men worked in the fields. For whatever reasons, the stigma of housewife seems to carry on.
 
shlunka said:
Not to mention that most gender roles are archaic. Women cleaned the house because men worked in the fields. For whatever reasons, the stigma of housewife seems to carry on.
Click to expand...

I don't really think it does anymore. One of the few bright points of the two-income household that's almost necessary these days is that it unconsciously destroys these notions of gender roles. One can sit there all they want and think that your job is to go get the paycheck and the woman's role is to manage the kids and household. However, when that check you're bringing home doesn't put the bacon in the pan for her to fry, it pretty much destroys that ever-fragile psyche that thinks a man does this and a woman does that.
 
Gipper said:
I guess I just find it sexist when an institution assumes that I'm predisposed to be a "breadwinner" and pushes me in that direction. If I was a girl, that assumes I'm predisposed to finish high school and marry my quarterback boyfriend immediately or go to college for the specific reason of finding a husband.
Click to expand...

I really don't think people that are pushing for traditional gender roles are focusing on the "stay at home mother" aspect.

What would happen to girls in a classroom that purports and emphasizes "gender roles"? I'm envisioning something along the lines of lessons in etiquette, household chores, and something akin to "cotillion".
Click to expand...

They used to have a cooking class and even a class to learn how to sow in my high school. It was pretty much all girls in both classes. I really couldn't say what they are talking about though. They don't say on what roles they want to teach and how they want to teach them, so your guess is as good as mine there.
 
Redress said:
The bolded...isn't that kinda completely different than gender roles? Where do gender roles and "responsible and respected" coincide?
Click to expand...

In my post, I tried to indicate I didn't agree with promoting stereotypes - the old women cook, clean and pump out babies and men go to the office and watch sports on weekends. My idea of teaching "gender roles" was on where young people are mentored in what it means to be a responsible and respected man or woman in civilized society - caring for others, helping those less fortunate, being self-reliant and self-motivated, knowing right from wrong, standing up for what is right even when it's not easy, that kind of thing, and having strong male and female teachers who live those roles in their daily lives and convey that message to the children in how they act and treat the students and their fellow teachers every day.

It's a little cliche I suppose and definitely dated, but the message conveyed by Sidney Poitier in "To Sir, With Love" should be timeless and unfortunately is thoroughly lost on today's youth.
 
I took home economics. It was not an elective.

Wish it was though, as I didn't need it. Dad left mom when I was 6, and my mom had to take a 2nd shift grunt job at a factory to make ends meet.

I remember watching others in my class (both boys and girls) trying to follow a recipe to the letter to cook something...and laughing under my breath. I guess I was the only kid in class that could do his multiplication tables while cooking a five-course dinner.
 
CanadaJohn said:
In my post, I tried to indicate I didn't agree with promoting stereotypes - the old women cook, clean and pump out babies and men go to the office and watch sports on weekends. My idea of teaching "gender roles" was on where young people are mentored in what it means to be a responsible and respected man or woman in civilized society - caring for others, helping those less fortunate, being self-reliant and self-motivated, knowing right from wrong, standing up for what is right even when it's not easy, that kind of thing, and having strong male and female teachers who live those roles in their daily lives and convey that message to the children in how they act and treat the students and their fellow teachers every day.

It's a little cliche I suppose and definitely dated, but the message conveyed by Sidney Poitier in "To Sir, With Love" should be timeless and unfortunately is thoroughly lost on today's youth.
Click to expand...

Maybe I am not communicating my question well, or am not really understanding your comment. Where I am confused is as to what that has to do with gender roles. To me those virtues you list seem to be irrespective on gender, something both men and women should have, and arrive at in the same way.
 
Redress said:
Maybe I am not communicating my question well, or am not really understanding your comment. Where I am confused is as to what that has to do with gender roles. To me those virtues you list seem to be irrespective on gender, something both men and women should have, and arrive at in the same way.
Click to expand...

No, you're not having trouble expressing yourself - perhaps I'm having trouble expressing my thoughts in connection with your poll and OP - I agree, these are universal traits I'd like to see in both men and women and encouraged in both boys and girls - I do feel, however, that boys/men and girls/women often get to them or act on them in ways that are often uniquely representative of their gender.
 
shlunka said:
Yes, because there isn't a single adolescent alive that enjoys expressing themselves through clothing.
Click to expand...

They are children. Discipline is what the need to meet goals and challenges in life. That discipline will help the succeed and be something, "freedom" to express themselves through their clothes gets them nothing useful to their lives.

Freedom of expression through clothing and the right amount of change will get you a cup of coffee.
Discipline and the right amount education/intelligence can get you almost anything you desire in life.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
GOP lawmaker: Teach grade-school classes on traditional gender roles - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

So, the question would be do you think we should teach a class similar to what Gingrey is suggesting, promoting traditional gender roles and marriage roles?
Click to expand...
Absolutely not. You should not teach children to limit themselves by traditional gender roles. What about the boys and girls who are different? I cannot endorse any program that would tell them that differences are not okay because they aren't traditional.

I would, however, support a series of classes on gender, race and sexuality that explore their origins, et al. in high school though.
 
ThePlayDrive said:
Absolutely not. You should not teach children to limit themselves by traditional gender roles. What about the boys and girls who are different? I cannot endorse any program that would tell them that differences are not okay because they aren't traditional.

I would, however, support a series of classes on gender, race and sexuality that explore their origins, et al. in high school though.
Click to expand...

That would be too costly and extensive. It would interfere with classes and subjects that are actually important.
 
Redress said:
GOP lawmaker: Teach grade-school classes on traditional gender roles - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room



So, the question would be do you think we should teach a class similar to what Gingrey is suggesting, promoting traditional gender roles and marriage roles?
Click to expand...

That would be offensive to those of non-traditional genders, and such bigotry should be called hate speech.

Like is being done in France...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...other-and-father-from-official-documents.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom