• 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
ChrisL said:
Well, that is what the thread is about, teaching "traditional" gender roles and "marriage" roles in school. See thread title. ;)
Click to expand...

See, I see the reminder, but I should also remind you that I answered both the original query from the OP and your post about dorks and being influenced by instructors.


An example of what you mean by "gender assumptions" and how an instructor would include that in his or her daily lessons would be nice. I'm really not sure if you mean inadvertent influence.
Click to expand...

I mean both inadvertent customs the instructor is following as well as verbal statements provided off-the-cuff that may provide an assumption about the genders.

With social skills or whatnot, those would largely be included in the lesson plans, if not as a result of classroom management.
 
Fiddytree said:
See, I see the reminder, but I should also remind you that I answered both the original query from the OP and your post about dorks and being influenced by instructors.
Click to expand...

I was being sarcastic. But I think if someone was influenced by some of MY teachers, they would probably be dorks. :shrug: I had some dorky teachers.




I mean both inadvertent customs the instructor is following as well as verbal statements provided off-the-cuff that may provide an assumption about the genders.

With social skills or whatnot, those would largely be included in the lesson plans, if not as a result of classroom management.
Click to expand...

Social skills, such as disciplining students to let them know they are behaving inappropriately and other such things are perfectly acceptable, as are inadvertent things the teacher might do. Of course, I've been referring to the OP in my posts, instructing children on gender identity and other similar things.
 
Public schools should limit their instruction to academics, which many are failing to do as it is.
 
joko104 said:
Public schools should limit their instruction to academics, which many are failing to do as it is.
Click to expand...

Exactly!!!


Jeez - can parents get any more derelict in their parental responsibilities?


I swear more and more people are treating their kids like pets that they REALLY love - rather then as children that they are responsible for.
 
So social engineering (State sponsored, naturally) is acceptable after all - when it advances conservative causes. Who'd'a thunkit?
 
I don't think it really matters. The gender roles are so ingrained that the kids teach each other from a young age. One of my profs said she did not push any gender typing onto her son. Well then he went off to school and by age 5, was being ridiculed by the other kids for playing with a doll or something. That sure turned around that behavior quickly. So it matters just as much what other parents in the area are signalling to their own kids.
 
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...

I don't know if it necessarily has to be taught in schools but I think promoting traditional gender roles is a good thing.

I imagine the children of parents who decided to push the political envelop at their children's expense are going to need a lot of therapy in the coming years.
 
Dapper Andy said:
I don't know if it necessarily has to be taught in schools but I think promoting traditional gender roles is a good thing.

I imagine the children of parents who decided to push the political envelop at their children's expense are going to need a lot of therapy in the coming years.
Click to expand...

Your imagination is not reality.
 
shlunka said:
What exactly is immoral about egalitarianism and equality of opportunity?
Click to expand...

Looking at how dysfunctional nuclear families have become, it is that they gave people greater freedom without teaching them how to use it responsibly.

Two people sharing their lives together can accomplish exponentially more (economically, socially, spiritually, etc) than most people can going it alone, but only if they develop an effective power-sharing scheme to keep the relationship stable.

In the laws and cultural norms of elder days, power-sharing schemes were dictated by the world around you, assigned, among other ways, in the form of gender roles -- that is, learned behaviors that were ingrained into people based on differences of sex. It was harder for a spouse to step on another's toes during a marriage when there was less overlap in their obligations, thus less compulsion to separate.

When large doses of egalitarianism changed that and gave people (especially women) more personal control over the nature of their relationships, it happened with an absence of knowledge of how to develop a power-sharing scheme.

Consequently, half of marriages end in divorce and the rest limp through it.

Which, among other problems, makes the tax benefits and incentives that apply to married couples a bit of a waste.
 
That this was introduced by a conservative shoots up a big red flag.
Tradition is something that is in an ever changing flux....thius state leaves the slow learning conservatives in the dust of change.....even me ( I am slow and old)...
But some things cannot ever change....and that, to me, includes marriage....both partners MUST work as a team....with love and respect being paramount...
Moral values MUST be taught at both the home and the school....and everywhere...........as it is, now....more or less.....
I voted "other"...
 
Morality Games said:
Looking at how dysfunctional nuclear families have become, it is that they gave people greater freedom without teaching them how to use it responsibly.

Two people sharing their lives together can accomplish exponentially more (economically, socially, spiritually, etc) than most people can going it alone, but only if they develop an effective power-sharing scheme to keep the relationship stable.

In the laws and cultural norms of elder days, power-sharing schemes were dictated by the world around you, assigned, among other ways, in the form of gender roles -- that is, learned behaviors that were ingrained into people based on differences of sex. It was harder for a spouse to step on another's toes during a marriage when there was less overlap in their obligations, thus less compulsion to separate.

When large doses of egalitarianism changed that and gave people (especially women) more personal control over the nature of their relationships, it happened with an absence of knowledge of how to develop a power-sharing scheme.

Consequently, half of marriages end in divorce and the rest limp through it.

Which, among other problems, makes the tax benefits and incentives that apply to married couples a bit of a waste.
Click to expand...
Yes, but I suppose a marriage kept together with nothing but a necessity to keep someone who fulfills unwanted obligations is a great marriage.
 
shlunka said:
Yes, but I suppose a marriage kept together with nothing but a necessity to keep someone who fulfills unwanted obligations is a great marriage.
Click to expand...

Demonizing "unwanted" obligations is a slippery slope, one that has led irresponsibility so extreme that it is affecting every aspect of our society, from the way government functions to the economy.

A moral person should not only want hard obligations (rejecting all help, even from those who love and support them), they should be reluctant to accept the benefits that came along with taking on those obligations.

The fact they don't is why our nation is in decline. People are so self-absorbed and focused on their own pain the fact that they applied for the "free ride" of tax benefits without producing the desired results (two high functioning individuals producing social resources and children who will produce more resources when they grow up) is something that doesn't even occur to them to think about while filing their divorce.
 
Last edited:
joko104 said:
Public schools should limit their instruction to academics, which many are failing to do as it is.
Click to expand...
To teach academics in a public school one needs the behavior of the students to allow teaching. The students come from backgrounds that may be traditional or new and not identical. But what is required is that they behave in a way that allows teaching of all the students. They need to be taught how to behave to allow teaching, including behavior at recess, that is proper. All the students must be treated as equals in this country. Traditional rolls differ depending on the family, tradition etc. Traditional rolls can be taught at home.
 
Last edited:
I only made it through the first three pages of this thread, so forgive me if I'm repeating something already said.

'Gender' rolls weren't taught in school, and my parents didn't separate by gender either.

We were raised all the same, we all cooked, cleaned, dragged the laundry bag downstairs for Mom, mowed the lawn and raked the leaves.

Toys were whatever we asked for, and shared between us. No activity was separate because of gender. Friends of both genders were encouraged.

The only differences were when puberty hit, and the 'talks' our parents would have with us. Once into our teens, we assumed different roles, but I'd say it was more likely from peer influence than anything else.

I flinch when I see parents limiting/influencing a child based on gender, they miss so much that way.
 
No....teaching young girls that their role is X (and of course X is based on how "traditional" you wanna get) and little boys that Y is their role is just ridiculous.

I know it's counter their beliefs but the 1950's aren't coming back. B
 
Enough "gender teaching" goes on outside of school already. Contrary to popular belief, children aren't stupid. They watch what's going on around them and do what most humans do to some extent or other, imitate what they see.


If you want to teach this kind of thing save it for college sociology or psych class.
 
shlunka said:
Exactly how is wearing clothes that you find enjoyable to wear "countering society"? How does one acquire discipline if they must perform an action because the alternative is legal repercussions? I don't smoke pot, not because I'm disciplined, but because it's illegal. I don't study, not because it's illegal, but because I lack discipline. If it were illegal for me not to study, and I faced certain repercussions if I did not study, then I would study. Not because I have disciplined myself to study, but because I HAVE to study. Requiring students to wear clothes or face repercussions does nothing for discipline, it merely adds another superfluous rule that does nothing but inhibit self-expression. For some people, clothing is a PASSION, and suddenly they will be deprived of pursuing that passion because of some misguided attempt to make students more obsequious.
Click to expand...

Well, for one thing, I said their system INCLUDING that. Not that alone. So trying to discuss it as a stand alone is rather inaccurate.
 
Morality Games said:
Demonizing "unwanted" obligations is a slippery slope, one that has led irresponsibility so extreme that it is affecting every aspect of our society, from the way government functions to the economy.

A moral person should not only want hard obligations (rejecting all help, even from those who love and support them), they should be reluctant to accept the benefits that came along with taking on those obligations.

The fact they don't is why our nation is in decline. People are so self-absorbed and focused on their own pain the fact that they applied for the "free ride" of tax benefits without producing the desired results (two high functioning individuals producing social resources and children who will produce more resources when they grow up) is something that doesn't even occur to them to think about while filing their divorce.
Click to expand...
I did no such "demonizing unwanted obligations" in my post. I simply replied with a sarcastic retort that earlier marriages were held together more simply because if the wife leaves, she has to find someone else to make the money, if the husband leaves, he has to find someone to perform household duties.
 
No. Leave that sort of stuff to the parents. Let the kids be who they want to be.
 
I voted "yes" mostly because it seems that the option is for a school to try to teach against them. Where the school is forced into the option, there's nothing wrong with letting Susie play hopscotcch while Timmie plays football.
 
I voted no because I don't believe it is the school's place to handle that issue. The role of the school is to educate, not help a child settle into gender roles.

I believe it is primarily the parent's responsibility to guide and nurture their own children. As the children grow they wil discover on their own whether or not such internal conflicts occur, and parents should be open enough to deal with this issue in a nurturing way. If the fail to handle it properly I am sure the children will get support from other social sources (peers, counselors, etc.).
 
It isn't the business of schools to tell children what they're allowed to be when they grow up. It's only their business to give them the basic tools they require to find out for themselves. Children already deal with enough labeling, boxing, and repression of personality, skills, and critical thinking from the adults in their life. The last thing they need is to have all of that enshrined in law.

I also find these kinds of "family" GOP'ers kind of strange. They practically foam at the mouth when someone proposes, say, a sex-ed class that simply mentions that homosexuality exists. They say schools "shouldn't be teaching morality" (apparently acknowledging the existence of gays advocates some kind of morality).

But then they turn around and propose that schools ACTUALLY DO advocate morality, via an elaborate childhood-long manipulation curriculum.

Apparently it's schools "overstepping their bounds" when it's merely suggesting the existence of things they don't like, and "what's important" when it comes to forcing and shoving children into their repressive idea of what an acceptable "boy" or "girl" is.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom