SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Lane3 who wrote (73748)8/31/2003 10:51:24 AM
From: epicure  Respond to of 82486
 
Thank goodness this is being looked at and taken seriously. I am so glad. In order for society to advance and improve, we must reexamine the way we look at some things we consider "normal"- like bullying, and name calling and all these other behaviors that can carry into adulthood and shape adult thinking, and make for truly unpleasant and even antisocial adults. I think I will read parts of that article to my classes. I think it is good for young people to know that there are adults out there looking at their experiences (the experiences of young people), and their lives, and trying to make the world more humane. It is reason for optimism.



To: Lane3 who wrote (73748)8/31/2003 11:09:51 AM
From: epicure  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486
 
This was posted to me at another thread. Amazing story- and I wasn't following it:

prospect.org



To: Lane3 who wrote (73748)8/31/2003 11:14:17 AM
From: epicure  Respond to of 82486
 
Did you see this? I'm posting the fist page- there is a page 2 if the article interests you:

Free to Marry, Canada's Gays Say, 'Do I?'
By CLIFFORD KRAUSS

TORONTO, Aug. 30 — When David Andrew, a 41-year-old federal government employee, heard that the highest Ontario court had extended marriage rights to same-sex couples two months ago, he broke into a sweat.

"I was dreading the conversation," he said, fearing that his partner would feel jilted when he told him that he did not believe in the institution. "Personally, I saw marriage as a dumbing down of gay relationships. My dread is that soon you will have a complacent bloc of gay and lesbian soccer moms."

When he moved in with David Warren, a 41-year-old software company project officer, he wrote up a set of vows that remains above their bed, seven years later. They promise "a confidant, playmate, partner in crime, biggest fan and protector." But they stop short of monogamy, which is something Mr. Andrew also says he does not believe in.

His skepticism about marriage is a recurring refrain among Canadian gay couples, who have not rushed to marry in great numbers in the weeks since June 10, when they became eligible. Rather, the extension of marriage rights has thrown gays here into a heated debate, akin to the one that embroiled the American civil rights movement in the 1960's, over how much "integration" is a good thing — and what gay marriage should consist of.

How marriage affects gay and lesbian life in Canada, and wider society, is an issue being closely watched by gays in the United States, who see what is happening in Canada as a harbinger for American society.

In Canada, conservative commentators worry aloud that gay marriage will undermine society, but many gays express the fear that it will undermine their notions of who they are. They say they want to maintain the unique aspects of their culture and their place at the edge of social change.

It is a debate that pits those who celebrate a separate and flamboyant way of life as part of a counterculture against those who long for acceptance into the mainstream. So heated is the conversation that some gay Canadians said in interviews that they would not bring up the topic at dinner parties.

"Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage," said Mitchel Raphael, editor in chief of Fab, a popular gay magazine in Toronto. "I'd be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of `till death do us part' and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play."

It is too soon to draw conclusions about how widespread gay marriage will become in Canada over time. Many same-sex couples say they need time to consider so basic a commitment, or are waiting for the anniversary of their first dates or of their commitment ceremonies to tie the knot.

Gay men seem more apprehensive about marriage than lesbians, and generally, couples with children, or thinking of having children, express more interest in marrying.

The ambivalence is reflected in the numbers of gay couples who have chosen marriage so far. While members of Toronto's gay population, by far Canada's largest, express support of the Ontario court's ruling and Prime Minister Jean Chrétien's decision to introduce legislation to legalize same-sex marriage nationwide, they have not mobilized to defend the change. Even as some churches and conservative politicians have begun to mobilize against the legislation, demonstrations for it have been few and mostly small.

Between the June 10 court ruling and last Monday, 590 gay and lesbian couples had taken out marriage licenses in Toronto's city hall, out of a total of 5,500 couples receiving licenses. And more than a hundred of the gay couples were American who crossed the border to marry.

A total of 6,685 same-sex Toronto couples registered as permanent partners in the 2001 census, about one-fifth of the total across Canada.

Still, the numbers are enough to have spawned the beginnings of a gay marriage industry. The magazine Fab published a guide to Toronto's new gay marriage scene, with tips on bridal harnesses and blue leather garters, bachelor party strippers and where to find counterculture bouquets of green roses and black magic flowers.

But the issue also included an essay by Rinaldo Walcott, a sociologist at the University of Toronto, warning that marriage could be an agent of homogenization.



To: Lane3 who wrote (73748)8/31/2003 12:44:47 PM
From: The Philosopher  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486
 
We were just having a discussion of bullying at the breakfast table this morning -- with one present teacher, two former teachers, and two starting teaching this year.

The first question, of course, is to define bullying. I notice that the article never defines bullying. We may think we know what it is, but if you get right down to it, there is much disagreement. Under our school's brand new bullying policy, for example, namecalling is bullying, so that if one kid calls another fat, the first kid has bullied the second under our school's policy. We are really going to wipe out kids calling other kids names? And is child B calling child A a bully itself a case of bullying?

If the medical establishment wants to address the problem, they have to start with a clear medical definition, with symptoms that can be diagnosed so that it is possible to say with a high degree of certainty "this behavior is bullying, that behavior isn't." Of course, context matters a lot -- behavior that is bullying on the playground is not bullying on the football field, but some football field behavior could constitute bullying, couldn't it?

Our school has also eliminated, this year, all recesses because the administration thinks that's where much of the bullying takes place, and they can't afford enough staff to manage the playground. So 6 year old children will be shut in their classrooms for four hours at a stretch. Never mind that this violates virtually everything we know about brain friendly learning. Never mind that almost every developmental specialist understands that play is an important aspect of human development. Those things are less important than overreacting to the latest thing.

One of the breakfast participants who has never been a teacher and isn't planning to be one was concerned about the kind of citizens we're going to turn out if we try to insulate children from every even mildly bad thing that might happen to them. How will they learn to deal with adversity? How will they learn the give and take of living in the world? How will they compete, economiclly, socially, and militarily, against citizens from other countries who are being schooled in a harsher environment?

Certainly we need to address the consequences of serious bullying. But the best way may not be to try to sanitize every child's life so they never learn to deal with anybody who is ever less than totally nice to them. And maybe the best answer is not to work so hard on eliminating every vestige of bullying, but rather to work on helping children learn positive ways of responding to and dealing with bullies.



To: Lane3 who wrote (73748)8/31/2003 1:20:54 PM
From: epicure  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 82486
 
I found a story in the book review in our local paper that might be on interest to you- a new end of the world as we know it, type book- Parasites Like Us. "Prehistoric Plague Gets Thawed Out in Spooky Satire. :-) Might be your cup of tea.