Category Archives: women

Let the Intimidation begin…

by

Another good blog from Diane Ravitch on the bullying in schools…

….not by the kids, mind you, but a teacher under pressure to conform and teach to the test and the principal who, as a commenter put it, has “lost their way”.

As was said–pit the parents and teachers against one another, and *voila*, you have dysfunction….leading to failing schools that can be closed and handed over to the profiteers….

From the blog:

My daughter, who is in the 11th grade, was victimized by her principal and teacher today because she submitted an opt out letter. She was made to feel wrong and unsupportive of her school because she wasn’t going to take the test.

~~~~~~

This is what I was talking about in my previous blog–it can be intimidating even for a parent to speak out–let alone a student who is vulnerable to the teacher’s grades and attitude.

Uppity people who ask questions or protest something they perceive as detrimental are to be dealt with—can’t have that because before you know it, there will be others who will also start asking questions….

 

 

Ripping the Band Aid Off

by

Diane Ravitch has a blog up on the new standard, Common Core for the public schools in NYC.

From The Economist comments section:

the new testing regime encourages a wider opening of the class gulf by giving teachers an incentive to compete for students with strong skills, excellent home support, and private resources to purchase any necessary tutoring to get Junior up to snuff. Who will stand up for the child of a poor single parent who can’t afford Khan Academy tutoring, doesn’t know enough algebra to help, and doesn’t have time to walk her/his child through the mountains of test preparation homework dispensed in the months leading up to this?

~~~~~~~~~~

Word.  The poor kids with no one at home who can help them and no money for tutoring and coming to school hungry because single Mom can’t afford breakfast…depressing….

An incident popped into my head when reading the comments on the link she provides to The Economist (strange that a story on education would end up there, eh?)  Anyway, being 34, the college I wanted to attend had required I take entrance exams a second time (the first time was the SAT’s in h.s.).  Algebra and Trigonometry were part of the exam.  I didn’t take the college prep courses in high school because I didn’t think I’d ever get to go to college (even though I wanted to)….so you could have knocked me over with a feather when the admissions counselor told me that I passed the Math test and could opt out of the pre-Math courses.  I think I actually laughed that I passed them without taking classes….which goes to show that exams shouldn’t have as much weight as they do.  I mean, I got decent grades in Math (B’s)…but did not know the material before taking the class—it would have been a disaster for me to opt-out.  Maybe, just maybe, I had a few Algebra and Trig problems while in h.s., because, if I recall correctly, textbooks at that time had problems for the next grade level at the back of the book, in order to prepare the students for the next year.  This might explain at least some of it.

Additionally, when I was in college, the ADD was bad and even though I studied my butt off for several hours and knew my subject matter, I still only got B’s and sometimes C’s because of poor test taking.  My mind would be all over the place.  This is another reason that testing shouldn’t be given the weight that it does–I knew the material, but you wouldn’t know it by the test.

Also, the university I began at had a much better support system with excellent tutors available to help unravel the Math mysteries.  The university I went to after the initial classes–the one I graduated from–deliberately made Math very difficult.  I think this was to “weed out” the students…after all, most of the professions that pay well involve Math.  If you have a lot of folks who can do Math, well then, you don’t have exclusivity, do you?  Harder to justify higher salaries when there are more folks who can do those jobs.

Lastly, testing aside, parents DO need to take an active role in supplementing their child’s teacher’s efforts.  AND even question their teachers when appropriate.  I had to do this twice –once when my middle child was having difficulty learning to read.  Her 1st Grade teacher was frustrated and going to label her as “stupid”…I could see the handwriting on the wall. I went to the precious gift of the library and checked out books on teaching kids to read, since I didn’t know how to help her—she was getting stuck on the words “a” , “and” and “the”….I luckily (or guided 🙂 found a book on Dyslexia.  I discovered that she was dyslexic.  And I discovered that I was, too.   Dyslexics have a hard time with a, and, the—because they learn to read by visualizing a picture in their head–b-a-l-l is a round thing they can bounce….they can’t picture a, and,the—because they don’t represent any *one* thing.  I checked out a Phonics book and began sitting down with her every night and eventually she *got it*.  She graduated from the same university many years later 😉

The second time I had to question my child’s teachers was when they were going to “Whole Language” — a stupid program that didn’t teach Phonics.  I wouldn’t have it and protested it.  I got a bunch of flack for it, but I went ahead and checked out the Phonics book a second time to help my third child  to read, too.  Incidentally, I also protested a change in class organization, when they were going to make the 2nd graders switch classes….like they were in middle school…to have two different teachers during the day.  I protested that because I believe the younger kids need to have one teacher for consistency…little ones need that security.  I was sent a condescending note that “they were sorry that I wouldn’t be joining them…”  As if everyone else didn’t have a problem with it, so why did I?

Teachers in D.C.

by

…protesting the corporate take over of public schools.  Good for them.

A tweeter has a link up to The Nation’s take on it.

From the article:

The growing movement against corporate-style education reform has its work cut out for it. It is, after all, challenging an insidiously well-messaged behemoth funded by billionaires and sanctioned by both major political parties.

~~~~~~~~~

Word.

How does one fight against something that both parties are for?  How does one fight against politicians who have not taught in a classroom, but seem to believe they know better than educators what our kids need?  And how does one fight against willful ignorance on their part when it is soooo obvious that No Child Left Behind is a colossal failure?

My prior posts on education here. And here. And here–profit factor. And here – about the kids who were most impacted by NCLB not graduating on time and dropping out.

No Child Left Behind is not about giving kids a well-rounded education with math, reading, art and music, and physical exercise, but going through the motions of educating kids with tests that don’t come close to evaluating what  a child’s potential truly is….

…worse than that, it pigeonholes kids, who are still developing, into boxes.  It takes away their uniqueness as human beings.  It does not recognize the potential because that is impossible to “test” for–their potential is the unexplored parts of themselves that they —and the world—have yet to discover.

I’m fifty years old and still have not reached my potential. 🙂

Thatcher

by

The comments here are priceless on Margaret Thatcher’s passing.  Gah, I used to think so well of this woman in my repub daze.  Arrgh.

And even if I had the money, I would not have seen Meryl Streep’s version of her.  I was afraid that the worst would not come out, and from the comments on the movie, my guess was accurate.  Trying to make her into someone to admire?  Wow, Streep has gone so far away from Silkwood. 

The comments on feminists praising Thatcher as being a woman that “made it” is spot on.  One doesn’t have to look any farther than Hillary Clinton to see that.

I mean, really, Clinton makes a big deal about being asked about her clothes, and there are feminists who applaud that thinking she’s being assertive. Pfft.  Men are asked about the suits they wear.  I wouldn’t know what an Armani suit was if not for that.  And a man could not walk into a courtroom, to use the above example, in jeans and flannel shirt and expect to be given the same consideration from a judge that he would if he were wearing a suit.  Men notice other men’s suits, but they’re not as obvious about it.  It may come out as “hey, nice suit” and left at that.

Should a person be judged by appearance?  Absolutely not.

In my personal observation, we are becoming worse about judging folks by the outside instead of the inside.  Our cultural programming, from watching shows like Survivor, among other things,  buys into the notion that others are superior.  Some see clothes as an indicator of superiority.  I remember that it wasn’t so much so before we moved away from an agricultural (family farm) culture.  I remember when Levi’s became the preferred jean and you were “uncool” if you didn’t have those jeans.  Uncool = lesser person.  This also coincides with “poor person”,  btw….

Somehow our culture became twisted along the way and “rich people” became associated with “good people”.  Being poor, one comes to assess folks not on their bank accounts, but on their actions.  What do they do with their funds?  Do they help others or spend their time degrading others and, like the Kochs, do their best to make sure that they have it all?

 

Anyway, Margaret Thatcher and Ronnie Reagan were the architects of what we’re dealing with today–the culture of greed.  “I’ve got mine, screw you.”   or “I’ve got mine, and I want yours, too.”

Cutting Social Security

by

President Obama is going to cave to the repubs, who hate Social Security and would like to dissolve it altogether…. (hat tip to common dreams).

…wave good-bye whatever security you felt you had when you turned 65….

Bring on the dog food and slums….and be sure to bail out some more banks–

—while Wall St and others profit…

 

The culture and women

by

The Boston Women’s Collective put out the book Our Bodies, Ourselves to fill that information gap for women and the issues that nobody talks about.

Here is a page on domestic violence which explores the options for women and questions the culture that fosters the thinking that women are weak, therefore, it’s okay to smack them around. They don’t explore verbal abuse enough, however, and therein lies a big problem….

I don’t think most women know what verbal abuse is…especially in this culture of the put-down being “funny”.  “What’s the matter, can’t you take a joke….?”

Verbal abuse isn’t taken as seriously because there’s no bleeding or bruising involved.  It’s much easier, I think, for us to look at someone who is hurt on the outside and be shocked at the brutality.  But with verbal abuse, the “bruises” and “cuts” are on the inside and that pain is difficult to “see”.

Humiliation, put-downs, and disrespect are all apart of verbal abuse, among other things.  And verbal abuse almost always precedes physical abuse.

Verbal abuse kills the soul.

Physical abuse kills the body.

To clarify

by

I was re-reading my post yesterday, and I thought perhaps I should clarify what I meant by the forum on Vatican II–it was just a small group of women from my local church that had been asked to participate in a discussion on Vatican II.  I was afraid after re-reading the post that it came across as a major thing, but it wasn’t.

And I left the church after my divorce–was shunned, basically, for getting a divorce (didn’t matter why I had gotten divorced, just that I had left a person from a family of Importance and political connections…..)

So, yeah, not likely I’ll go back there….

Pope washes feet

by

Pope Francis washes the feet of inmates of a juvenile detention facility.

When I heard this story over the weekend, I was moved by it.  Of course, it is a symbolic gesture that requires change within the church…

Some have said that there is new hope with the folks who believed Vatican II was the beginning of reform in the church….but were sadly disappointed.

When younger, I was asked to participate in a woman’s forum on Vatican II.  There was just a handful of we women.  When the discussion turned to birth control, I stated that I thought the church should embrace the modern methods of birth control.  (It’s pretty much already in practice by most Catholic women that I knew, so it was merely a blessing by the church.)

Well….that was quickly shot down by the nun that was present.

I wasn’t asked back for my thoughts on women in the priesthood. Ha.  Nor was I asked about my thoughts on women as equals who had more of a purpose in life than just baby machines.  Not trying to devalue that, mind you, as I value that aspect of being a woman–being a mother is the best thing that happened to me, but it was not the only part of me to offer to the world. The church’s stance against feminism speaks to the mindset.  Not that feminists have all the answers, but they offer a different point of view than the traditional that expands one’s thoughts beyond the male mindset of the church.

We get back to the balance needed in the world today–valuing masculine over feminine, valuing culture over nature…when a balance is needed between the two.

It’s good than Pope Francis has taken this step and has asked for Peace.  It is also good that he values the environment–as nature is seen as feminine (Native Americans) and by that standard, our trashing of the environment speaks volumes on our views of the feminine.

Here’s to hope.

Freud’s Legacy

by

In our building, we have a small library with some good mysteries (which I love), and we all share the books between us.

I like to read them before bed, and this last one just is over the top in stereotypes.  I quit reading trashy romance novels because of the way women were portrayed as always needing rescued and in some of the cases, the women were…how to put this…gently raped.  Or perhaps I should say date raped….the last romance novel with this in it had portrayed a Native American woman as a princess (there is no such thing) that was  in love with a European guy who thought she was seeing someone else.  He proceeds to throw her on the bed and rip her clothes off….and you get the rest.  This was so offensive that it pretty much turned me off of them (some exceptions are ones where the woman is independent and doesn’t need rescued, but enjoys having a companion to share her life).

So…long intro story into the book I just finished—

This mystery was about a serial killer that was attacking women in a certain area.  I’ll spare you the gruesome details (also not one of my favorite reads–I prefer the kind Agatha Christie wrote that focused more on analytical ability than the gore).  But essentially these women were connected to a domestic violence recovery center and three of them disappeared and two bodies were recovered.  A third survived, but would be blind and deaf for life.  I liked the fact that the book somewhat highlighted centers that helped women to recover from abusive relationships–absolutely get that, BUT that was briefly talked about.  The other women characters, save for our one heroine and the lady running the center, were textbook misogyny.  As Freud did, the acts of the brutal men were blamed on the women in their lives.  The killer, a professional man whom nobody suspected (except me–I had him nailed after the first few chapters), was driven to the horrible crimes by his overbearing, career driven wife.  The book brings up a real life serial killer (whose name escapes me right now) whose mother was so controlling that it drove him to his crimes.   Another woman married to a man who commits domestic violence on her and their child was portrayed as an alcoholic who did not help her son or try to seek help at said domestic violence center—a curious part of the plot.

The heroine of the book was a teacher.  Now, most teachers I know are dedicated as this one was portrayed.  But to portray only her as “a good woman” just left me depressed as women have to be perfect in order to be considered “good women”.

The career woman was a complete bitch who did not care about her child or husband.  I’m not saying that those women don’t exist, but it was just sooo over the top.  And to blame her for the violent actions of her husband was pure Freud.  Anything wrong in the relationship or the man acts in anti-social ways?  Well, then, blame the woman he’s with or his mother….case closed!

As I’ve said before—there are plenty of people who have been abused as children and don’t go on to abuse others as adults.  They make that choice not to repeat the abuse….

…which leads to the question of why do some folks go on to abuse and others do not?   Compassion?  Why don’t those that go on to abuse others have that compassion?  Free will plays in this, I know, but why do they choose violence?

Thanks for letting me vent.  End of rant