thoughts from uni
so i was doing this really strange reading for a class (most of which i didn't agree with) and found this -
any male who thinks he is in control of the courtship process is having himself on. once women started demanding their future husband should be 'tried out' before marriage, men lost control. in the USA of the 1860s, women made a virtue out of 'candour' to test men's real feelings. The practice of multiple 'dating' came from the urban poor in the 1890s but soon become a universal way of gaining confidence, especially for women, though the men paid for the privilege.
Edgar, D (1997). Men, mateship, marriage. Harper Collins. Sydney. pp2-31.
I'm doing a subject called 'relationships, gender and sexuality'. some of it is good and some, not so good. today in a lecture we were talking about what makes a family. the issues of gay families and multiple partners and marriage all came up as well as transsexuals. different values and world views were rather evident in the reactions of some who willingly expressed their views. all the guys in the class did not agree with families being anything other than a mother and father with kids, rather than two fathers or what not.
it was rather interesting to look at what families provided in their function. things such as
physical care and protection
socialisation and education
proceation and child rearing
economic support
these are all traditional functions and now shared by other organisations in society such as schools, centrelink, counselors and many others.
any thoughts?
any male who thinks he is in control of the courtship process is having himself on. once women started demanding their future husband should be 'tried out' before marriage, men lost control. in the USA of the 1860s, women made a virtue out of 'candour' to test men's real feelings. The practice of multiple 'dating' came from the urban poor in the 1890s but soon become a universal way of gaining confidence, especially for women, though the men paid for the privilege.
Edgar, D (1997). Men, mateship, marriage. Harper Collins. Sydney. pp2-31.
I'm doing a subject called 'relationships, gender and sexuality'. some of it is good and some, not so good. today in a lecture we were talking about what makes a family. the issues of gay families and multiple partners and marriage all came up as well as transsexuals. different values and world views were rather evident in the reactions of some who willingly expressed their views. all the guys in the class did not agree with families being anything other than a mother and father with kids, rather than two fathers or what not.
it was rather interesting to look at what families provided in their function. things such as
physical care and protection
socialisation and education
proceation and child rearing
economic support
these are all traditional functions and now shared by other organisations in society such as schools, centrelink, counselors and many others.
any thoughts?
posted by Cara at
4:57 PM
10 Comments:
This comment has been removed by the author.
By
Christop, at 2:39 AM
One of my thoughts is that the whole push for homosexuals (and other couples who can't naturally have kids) to be allowed to have kids is partly so that medical companies can make money providing them with children.
By
Christop, at 2:39 AM
We looked at all this in first year, it's all pretty common sense, isn't it. I'm actually surprised at the reaction you described though - the education students you do the subject with should have been brainwashed already to think that gay-headed families are ok and normal... we have that forced into us in several different subjects over the years.
By
Steff, at 11:54 PM
When families are not providing what they ought to provide...others are providing it for them...but they cant do it as well as families could.
Schools cant teach as well as families can. Which is why in the australian governments national goals it states parents as the first educators.
Strong families make the basis for a strong society. If laws, politican's, uni lectures and anyone else weakens families, they weaken our country.
By
Trav, at 8:40 PM
In the same way, families - and the broader community - need to be responsible for educating children, rather than just expecting the government to do it.
By
Christop, at 12:49 AM
This issue is very closely related to spiritual development too - it's been said that some parents/families leave all the 'spiritual teaching' up to the sunday school/youth group/church when first and foremost kids should be getting God at home - through their parents living it out, talking about it, teaching it, providing opportunities to relate to God, etc, etc!
And on Trav's note, I read a very interesting hypothesis (dated around 50 years ago) that all societies around the world and throughout the ages go through a similar series of steps on the way to degradation and eventual collapse. Surprisingly, the common features weren't war or economy but things such as fidelity in marriage and protection of children... Where do you think the future of our society lies?
By
Steff, at 11:26 PM
Future of society...big daunting question.
Since society is made of individuals, it's future depends on how those individuals live.
I'm an individual so i can throw my influnence toward a better society.
By
Trav, at 2:18 PM
Steff, that study sounds interesting. Do you know where I could find it?
By
Christop, at 4:13 AM
should the society be dependent just on individuals or should those individuals be more like a community and interdependant on each other?
would that make a better society with people more supportive on each other and less dependant on the government?
is that more or less sustainable?
By
Cara, at 5:13 PM
Chris, I can't remember the name of the guy or which subject I heard it in! I have an inkling it was something last year, so when I have some time I'll dig all my notes out of the box somewhere...
By
Steff, at 7:55 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home