Posts by sally jones
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Up Front: That's Inappropriate!, in reply to BenWilson,
...and of course during swim sports days we pretty much got to see everyone except the teachers in their undies.
Yes, and we got to see you! ;)
At the high school my 17 year old son attends, the boys are required to shave. Apparently some Year 13's don't, and he, him hairy self, has been hauled up for whiskers on occasion. He takes after...no. Save that for next post.
But why not whiskers? It seems there could be some comparison made between restrictions on girls' uniforms and the rule against whiskers for boys.
Of course, for boys it's probably mostly about neatness. For girls and women it's always been about something much darker and deeper and momentous - like the survival of the human race, or something. If a girl wears a short skirt she is going straight to hell and dragging the rest of us 'down' with her.
Did anyone see Sunday Theatre last week? Not sure what the Catholics would be making of it. My bed buddy described it as "bleak". All that indoctrination about the hells of hell on the very young. I hope 'we' are moving decisively beyond the terrify-the-young approach to religious instruction (notwithstanding media distortions for purposes of sensationalism). Much depends upon it, IMHO. -
Oh darn I am late to this interesting post. I have been busy and distracted and lazy, even now haven't read it all. Kind of stopped after talk of skirts left the room but it's always interesting on your thread, Emma (spoken from minimal experience, albeit).
You have made me think - always a good thing. In fact this whole darned PA thing is making me think - aarr!!! - realise that's kind of the point. It just hurts sometimes.
But I mustn't ramble on...
I have a 15-year-old daughter who doesn't have a pony. Her skirts are short, because she is rather short, but she mostly wears jeans Juno-style. We had a mild argument, that she won, over how far to take up her high school skirt when she started high school three years ago - but no issue since. We have had other conversations/arguments over what she wears that I'm beginning now to regret, though no obvious harm done - so far. She likes low-rider trousers that have been known to reveal her undies. I suggested she wear black undies so they wouldn't be so obvious. When she jogs in tight tights I prefer her to wear a top slung round her hips, just a light-weight one that doesn't weigh her down too much.
I am thinking now that these are 'inappropriate' interventions on my part. Your post has made me look a little differently at the issue. I saw my daughter today and felt a sudden uplift that she is she, and so curious to find out more about her as she grows, that I wanted her to have total freedom to do that, to be as much her as she can be, if that makes sense.
She is trustworthy. She takes after her father in that respect (seriously). I think this trust is more important than the 'appropriate' clothing. And if criticising her judgement casts doubt on that feeling of being trusted in her eyes, then it does harm. I should trust in trust.Thanks for the post and discussion.
-
I’m seeing… underwear. With a crotch. Nice pair of Spanx
And a mankini for Will - in royal purple of course
-
Speaker: My People, in reply to Martin Lindberg,
Besides, it’s an argument for introducing a policy to address an issue which simply does not exist. That some people fear that this is an issue does not make it one.
If it's not an issue it's not an issue. More research needed - or not - depending on where we as a society want to put our time and money.
Also, defending a policy on the grounds that worse policies are about to be passed that will make its badness pale in comparison is… a curious way of promoting its benefits.
Not quite what I said. I think we already have worse policies. Most of our families are underfunded as it stands, benefit or no benefit. Raising children today is insanely expensive. I think we could allocate more state funding overall to the raising of children - because there is nothing more worthwhile a society can do for itself - but just take some of the right-wing angst out of the equation too.
-
Speaker: My People, in reply to Martin Lindberg,
I can sense some self-righteous idealism as well, but it’s not coming from Joe.
I'll accept that - and regret that.
Pander to that fear? However unreasonable it is? Because perception is reality?
I genuinely don't think this has to be pandering to anything or anyone. No existing family or child would be affected. Such a policy could be brought in gradually over 25 years.
I don't know.
I think there are far meaner things happening in the current welfare and tax systems in terms of the distribution of state assets than this would introduce. -
Speaker: My People, in reply to Joe Wylie,
Where does the money go, and how is it ‘locked away’ from the parents?
? No locking away. The same amount of money distributed over 3-4 children per family up to a certain maximum amount - a generous maximum to be sure. Plus free quality public health and pre/schooling for all children.
So, let’s appease Mr & Mrs Redneck Busybody by appearing to penalise people who probably aren’t having kids to rort the system, but just in case they actually are, what’d be the harm?
Jesus wept.
There's no penalty in this, only trust in parents to spend their money equally between all their children and a (generous) limit on state funds to help them do that.
In a democracy the distribution of public funds is always in a citizen's interests. You need to rein in your self-righteous idealism a little.
-
Speaker: My People, in reply to Lilith __,
Sorry for my delayed response.
Sally, I know you write in haste, but how does this idea not impoverish all children of larger families? It's not their fault which family they're born into
Lilith: I'm sorry if my argument gave you the impression that I don't value children - and equally. There is no other way to value them. None of this has anything whatsoever to do with naming and blaming. In my mind there is no fault attached to being on a benefit, certainly not an automatic blame, whether of the father or of the son, or of any of the female family members involved.
My long-winded suggestion was in response to concerns raised on this thread over welfare dependency being encouraged by the state. It was just a suggestion meant in the spirit of continuing the debate about stuff that worries people.
In such a system there wouldn't have to be any reduction in overall funding for children or families. It would just be allocated differently to remove any incentive to have more children for the sake of increasing the benefit. If people don't do this now then nothing would change for them. I did say as a caveat to my suggestion that this concern, especially where it intersects with the standard bashing of solo parents, is inevitably overstated. But in any case, it's just a thought - expressed in stupid haste. Sorry for offence taken.
My politics have always been to the left. I have probably thought for too many years about some of the stuff that seems to win and lose elections, including worry over welfare, and I'm beginning to think certain compromises might be required.
Some of my reasoning is built on frustration over the country's political conservatism, our fear of change and readiness to buy into the politics of envy and fear. Envy of the rich - eg Australia, John Key - and fear of crime, but also fear of poverty and welfare dependency. Rather than feed this fear it might be cleverer to restructure the system by which state funds to assist parents in the raising of children are distributed.
-
Busytown: A Classical Education: Chapter…, in reply to Sacha,
Unsubtle put-down for him. As you were.
Thanks Sacha, I think it worked.
Is 'Sacha' a Russian name meaning great leader? Read that somewhere. Kind of fits Sacha Baron Cohen in that case, especially in male beachwear :)
-
Busytown: A Classical Education: Chapter…, in reply to Jackie Clark,
Jackie:
Very thoughtful, as always. I hope you're right.
It's interesting how different childhood and adulthood are, when you think about it. In adulthood we're much more in the world - and it's a BIG place, kinda scary really. But as a child I think much of the time we're lost (and found - protected) within our own childhood, if that makes sense. Kind of self absorbed in a way that adult relationships and responsibilities make more difficult, and not so cool. -
Busytown: A Classical Education: Chapter…, in reply to Tim Michie,
Tim:
Don’t worry Sally. We start wondering at other things and relearn how to enjoy our uncertainty. Even if it’s worrying.
Danielle:
I think my certainty only lasted about five minutes, if I ever had it. Then things get wondrous again
Yes, indeed. Standard maternal overreaction. It's a reflex and a disease (in my case). Plus he's battling scholarship calculus at the moment, which I am assured (on the authority of one) is quite unachievable. Not such a wondrous prospect for him. His mother should be more understanding...
'Other things' to wonder at Tim...? I'm afraid he's inherited the late developer gene in that respect, if I read you right. But quite enough said on that matter for now - and forever...
Sacha:
Like I say, when he moves on from Bebo, let’s talk
Well that I still don't know much about, I'm afraid. I did ask him and he seemed to agree that Bebo was old. He's a gamer/YouTuber, not much Facebook, as far I know.