Government Should Teach Traditional Values

Sorry my friend, but I've BEEN in the schools these days including sitting in the classroom, and they are VERY different from what they used to be. And it is the products of those same schools that are today's parents.

So yes, today's schools may reflect the values of their community as they did when I was in school. But it is very different values being reflected now than was the case when I was in school. If we could put conservatives back in charge of the schools for a generation of school children, we would all be infinitely better off than we are now and I believe children would again be getting a first class education in the public schools.

That won't happen unless we get the federal government and teacher's union out of the schools entirely.

yeah, parents have nothing to do with it...

:eusa_liar:

Now I didn't say that did I.

But ask yourself why parents are so different now than they were then.

I did.

More work, and more are divorced.
 
values, aka standards are taught at home and by society in general.
schools in the last 30 years have had stop or cut back any "values" teaching because in that same 30 year period it has conflicted with so called home /religious values.

Baloney. Those same schools I grew up in were in communities in which the Church was the social center of the community, just about EVERYBODY belonged to and attended one, and the home values reigned supreme. And I grew up in ultra conservative small towns. And in all those years I can tell you the religious affiliation of two of my teachers and the political affiliation of none. I cannot remember EVER being told in the school what to think religiously, politically, or historically or anything else. We were taught to think criticially and analyze the prevailing wisdom of the various periods of history.

These days specific attitudes about sociopolitical issues are being pushed. That didn't happen in my day.
yes it did, in those far off days the schools and churches homes were nearly one in the same,especially in small towns.
it not till the late sixties did that start to change most schools became more "liberal"
here are some examples of schools teaching "values"

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKxBKfRph_g]Snap Out of It! (Emotional Balance) (1951) - YouTube[/ame]



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wuQOki7jjY]Girls Beware (1961) - YouTube[/ame]





 
Last edited by a moderator:
values, aka standards are taught at home and by society in general.
schools in the last 30 years have had stop or cut back any "values" teaching because in that same 30 year period it has conflicted with so called home /religious values.

Baloney. Those same schools I grew up in were in communities in which the Church was the social center of the community, just about EVERYBODY belonged to and attended one, and the home values reigned supreme. And I grew up in ultra conservative small towns. And in all those years I can tell you the religious affiliation of two of my teachers and the political affiliation of none. I cannot remember EVER being told in the school what to think religiously, politically, or historically or anything else. We were taught to think criticially and analyze the prevailing wisdom of the various periods of history.

These days specific attitudes about sociopolitical issues are being pushed. That didn't happen in my day.
yes it did, in those far off days the schools and churches homes were nearly one in the same,especially in small towns.
it not till the late sixties did that start to change most schools became more "liberal"
here are some examples of schools teaching "values"

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKxBKfRph_g]Snap Out of It! (Emotional Balance) (1951) - YouTube[/ame]



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wuQOki7jjY]Girls Beware (1961) - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQpM2kNouD4]Act Your Age (1949) - YouTube[/ame]



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvoVOzULZY0]Let's Be Good Citizens at School (1953) - YouTube[/ame]

No it didn't. I know it didn't because I was there. The schools didn't start becoming more liberal until mostly after the 70's and it wasn't until the late 80's and the 90's that I saw the extremism beginning to show up in classroom content, just about the time people started looking at the federal government as the primary driving force behind education. And that was also about the time that the 60's rebel generation was taking over the power in the classrooms, administration, government, and the media.
 
Yeah, it's real extreme to teach tolerance of different religions, cultures, ethnicities, and sexual orientation.

It's real extreme to have a zero tolerance policy of bullying in the schools. Gone are the "good ol' days" when you could beat the crap out of a black kid or a gay and get commended for it. Poor RWNJ's, they are so oppressed now.

Yeah, blame it on the sixties and the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Conservatives always want to turn the world backwards.

I subscribe to Teaching Tolerance. How radical of me.

Conservatives think Church belongs in the public school system. I don't.

I believe in dealing with REALITY. Families don't look the way they did in the fifties. They are more complex, with step families, multi-ethnic, multi-racial, mixed religion, one parent, two parent, three parent, four parent household, and YES, like it or not GAY families too. Get over it.

By all means, don't be challenged by living in a plurality. Pretend this is a white right wing Christian, misogynist, heterosexist nation.

Turn back the hands of time to when women and children were chattel, blacks were slaves or lynchable, homosexuals were jailed or hospitalized, and alcoholic unhappy wives were the norm.

Oh, yeah, nostalgia for the good old days, when if you were a courageous leader who stood up for something, you were assassinated.
 
Last edited:
Core democratic values: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, the common good, justice, equality, diversity, truth, popular sovreignity and patriotism.
 
Baloney. Those same schools I grew up in were in communities in which the Church was the social center of the community, just about EVERYBODY belonged to and attended one, and the home values reigned supreme. And I grew up in ultra conservative small towns. And in all those years I can tell you the religious affiliation of two of my teachers and the political affiliation of none. I cannot remember EVER being told in the school what to think religiously, politically, or historically or anything else. We were taught to think criticially and analyze the prevailing wisdom of the various periods of history.

These days specific attitudes about sociopolitical issues are being pushed. That didn't happen in my day.
yes it did, in those far off days the schools and churches homes were nearly one in the same,especially in small towns.
it not till the late sixties did that start to change most schools became more "liberal"
here are some examples of schools teaching "values"

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKxBKfRph_g]Snap Out of It! (Emotional Balance) (1951) - YouTube[/ame]



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wuQOki7jjY]Girls Beware (1961) - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQpM2kNouD4]Act Your Age (1949) - YouTube[/ame]



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvoVOzULZY0]Let's Be Good Citizens at School (1953) - YouTube[/ame]

No it didn't. I know it didn't because I was there. The schools didn't start becoming more liberal until mostly after the 70's and it wasn't until the late 80's and the 90's that I saw the extremism beginning to show up in classroom content, just about the time people started looking at the federal government as the primary driving force behind education. And that was also about the time that the 60's rebel generation was taking over the power in the classrooms, administration, government, and the media.

I'm not sure how anyone could possibly mistake the US Federal Government as anything remotely similar to "the primary driving force behind education."

At best, it is a distant second.

Almost none of a public school's budget comes from federal funding.
The LOCAL elected school board writes school policy.

It wasn't until the 70's and 80's that women began to work at jobs that allowed them to be independant (career women) in significant numbers. It was about this time that the divorce rate rose to 50%+ all marriages. Without a stay-at-home mom, and many broken homes, values that had been "traditional" began to disappear. Schools began to see increased discipline problems, adolescent drug and alcohol use, etc.,etc.

This had nothing to do with "liberal values" displacing "traditional values," unless you consider a liberal value as one that encouraged women to be more than nurses, secretaries, airline stewardesses, and hairdressers. Frankly I'd expect that if anyone had a daughter, then they would appreciate this value.
 
yes it did, in those far off days the schools and churches homes were nearly one in the same,especially in small towns.
it not till the late sixties did that start to change most schools became more "liberal"
here are some examples of schools teaching "values"

Snap Out of It! (Emotional Balance) (1951) - YouTube



Girls Beware (1961) - YouTube

Act Your Age (1949) - YouTube



Let's Be Good Citizens at School (1953) - YouTube

No it didn't. I know it didn't because I was there. The schools didn't start becoming more liberal until mostly after the 70's and it wasn't until the late 80's and the 90's that I saw the extremism beginning to show up in classroom content, just about the time people started looking at the federal government as the primary driving force behind education. And that was also about the time that the 60's rebel generation was taking over the power in the classrooms, administration, government, and the media.

I'm not sure how anyone could possibly mistake the US Federal Government as anything remotely similar to "the primary driving force behind education."

At best, it is a distant second.

Almost none of a public school's budget comes from federal funding.
The LOCAL elected school board writes school policy.

It wasn't until the 70's and 80's that women began to work at jobs that allowed them to be independant (career women) in significant numbers. It was about this time that the divorce rate rose to 50%+ all marriages. Without a stay-at-home mom, and many broken homes, values that had been "traditional" began to disappear. Schools began to see increased discipline problems, adolescent drug and alcohol use, etc.,etc.

This had nothing to do with "liberal values" displacing "traditional values," unless you consider a liberal value as one that encouraged women to be more than nurses, secretaries, airline stewardesses, and hairdressers. Frankly I'd expect that if anyone had a daughter, then they would appreciate this value.

I was a daughter then and I simply see things differently than you do. I never once felt restricted to strictly 'women's' jobs and yes, the more the 'liberal values' began to rip the families apart, the more negative consequences we began to see in that. Women's liberation--definitely a liberal value--went way to the left to denigrate men and fathers and exalt the independent woman who needed no man while those of more conservative values didn't feel any need for liberation because we already were. But the "men aren't necessary' mantra had its effect and the trend of fatherless homes began to escalate to dangerous proportions with all the negative consequences resulting from that. It became fashionable to abort the conceived baby rather than adjust the lifestyle to accommodate a new life, and that too has had its negative consequences.

Conservative values are for two parent homes as much as possible, parenting, feeding your kids, disciplining your kids and teaching important values, parental involvement, knowing what was in the curriculum your kids are learning, and expecting kids to be educated and not promoted because it was too much trouble to see that they learned the material before pushing them on, knowing your kids' teachers, and paying attention.

It was not conservative values that changed all that.
 
Baloney. Those same schools I grew up in were in communities in which the Church was the social center of the community, just about EVERYBODY belonged to and attended one, and the home values reigned supreme. And I grew up in ultra conservative small towns. And in all those years I can tell you the religious affiliation of two of my teachers and the political affiliation of none. I cannot remember EVER being told in the school what to think religiously, politically, or historically or anything else. We were taught to think criticially and analyze the prevailing wisdom of the various periods of history.

These days specific attitudes about sociopolitical issues are being pushed. That didn't happen in my day.
yes it did, in those far off days the schools and churches homes were nearly one in the same,especially in small towns.
it not till the late sixties did that start to change most schools became more "liberal"
here are some examples of schools teaching "values"

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKxBKfRph_g]Snap Out of It! (Emotional Balance) (1951) - YouTube[/ame]



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wuQOki7jjY]Girls Beware (1961) - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQpM2kNouD4]Act Your Age (1949) - YouTube[/ame]



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvoVOzULZY0]Let's Be Good Citizens at School (1953) - YouTube[/ame]

No it didn't. I know it didn't because I was there. The schools didn't start becoming more liberal until mostly after the 70's and it wasn't until the late 80's and the 90's that I saw the extremism beginning to show up in classroom content, just about the time people started looking at the federal government as the primary driving force behind education. And that was also about the time that the 60's rebel generation was taking over the power in the classrooms, administration, government, and the media.
bullshit ...I started school in 1964 in Georgia desegregation had just started in that state where, one of the values being taught was racism...until the democratic government stepped in.
if that is not an example of schools teaching values there is not one.

A History of Public Education in the United States
by Deeptha Thattai


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Editorial Summary
This article explores the history of the United States' public education system, tracing its development from its roots in Puritan and Congregationalist religious schools in the 1600s and subsequently the availability of free elementary education thanks to the efforts of Common School reformers in the 1800s. It continues on to the dramatic changes of the 1900s, culminating in today's highly decentralized (but still very imperfect) system. It explores the impact that many figures of great importance in America's history have had on the education system, and discusses various social, legal and cultural factors that have all influenced public education. The article also touches on issues of racial and gender equality.


Early History
American public education differs from that of many other nations in that it is primarily the responsibility of the states and individual school districts. The national system of formal education in the United States developed in the 19th century. Jefferson was the first American leader to suggest creating a public school system. His ideas formed the basis of education systems developed in the 19th century.
The most preliminary form of public education was in existence in the 1600s in the New England colonies of Massachusetts, Connecticut and New Hampshire. The overriding belief on educating the children was more due to religious reasons and was easy to implement, as the only groups in existence were the Puritans and the Congregationalists. However, the influx of people from many countries and belonging to different faiths led to a weakening of the concept. People refused to learn only in English and opposed the clergy imposing their religious views through public education. By the middle of the eighteenth century, private schooling had become the norm.

After the Declaration of Independence, 14 states had their own constitutions by 1791, and out of the 14, 7 states had specific provisions for education. Jefferson believed that education should be under the control of the government, free from religious biases, and available to all people irrespective of their status in society. Others who vouched for public education around the same time were Benjamin Rush, Noah Webster, Robert Coram and George Washington. It was still very difficult to translate the concept to practice because of the political upheavals, vast immigration, and economic transformations. Thus, even for many more decades, there were many private schools, and charitable and religious institutions dominating the scene.

The Beginning of the Public Education System
Until the 1840s the education system was highly localized and available only to wealthy people. Reformers who wanted all children to gain the benefits of education opposed this. Prominent among them were Horace Mann in Massachusetts and Henry Barnard in Connecticut. Mann started the publication of the Common School Journal, which took the educational issues to the public. The common-school reformers argued for the case on the belief that common schooling could create good citizens, unite society and prevent crime and poverty. As a result of their efforts, free public education at the elementary level was available for all American children by the end of the 19th century. Massachusetts passed the first compulsory school attendance laws in 1852, followed by New York in 1853. By 1918 all states had passed laws requiring children to attend at least elementary school. The Catholics were, however, opposed to common schooling and created their own private schools. Their decision was supported by the 1925 Supreme Court rule in Pierce v. Society of Sisters that states could not compel children to attend public schools, and that children could attend private schools instead.
High Schools
The first publicly supported secondary school in the United States was the Boston Latin School, founded in 1635. Harvard was the first University in existence at that time. The attendance in secondary schools was very little because the curriculum was specialized and hard. The demand for skilled workers in the middle of the eighteenth century led Benjamin Franklin to start a new kind of secondary school. Thus, the American Academy was established in Philadelphia in 1751. American high schools eventually replaced Latin grammar schools. The rise in American high school attendance was one of the most striking developments in U.S. education during the 20th century. From 1900 to 1996 the percentage of teenagers who graduated from high school increased from about 6 percent to about 85 percent. As the 20th century progressed, most states enacted legislation extending compulsory education laws to the age of 16. It is essential to look at the history of public education along with the events shaping the country in the early years of the 20th century. The Great Depression, World War II, the Cold War, wars with other countries, civil rights movement, student protests and the numerous political events within the country all had their effects on the education system too. In the 1920s and 30s, “progressive education” was the word of the day; the focus then shifted to intellectual discipline and curriculum development projects in the later decades.
During the 20th century participation in higher or postsecondary education in the United States increased tremendously. At the beginning of the century about 2 percent of Americans from the ages of 18 to 24 were enrolled in a college. Near the end of the century more than 60 percent of this age group, or over 14 million students, were enrolled in about 3500 four-year and two-year colleges.

The Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890 provided federal financial support to state universities. Many land-grant colleges and state universities were established through gifts of federal land to the states for the support of higher education. Financial support was extended to the universities and this in turn led to increased research. In addition, the numbers of students attending college increased dramatically after World War II ended in 1945.

Involvement at the Local and Federal Levels
Individual states—rather than the federal government—have primary authority over public education in the United States. Eventually, every state developed a department of education and enacted laws regulating finance, the hiring of school personnel, student attendance, and curriculum. In general, however, local districts oversee the administration of schools, with the exception of licensing requirements and general rules concerning health and safety. Public schools have also relied heavily on local property taxes to meet the vast majority of school expenses. American schools have thus tended to reflect the educational values and financial capabilities of the communities in which they are located.
By the middle of the 20th century, most states took a more active regulatory role than in the past. States consolidated school districts into larger units with common procedures. In 1940 there were over 117,000 school districts in the United States, but by 1990 the number had decreased to just over 15,000. The states also became much more responsible for financing education. In 1940 local property taxes financed 68 percent of public school expenses, while the states contributed 30 percent. In 1990 local districts and states each contributed 47 percent to public school revenues. The federal government provided most of the remaining funds.

During the 1980s and 1990s, virtually all states have given unprecedented attention to their role in raising education standards. A federal report published in 1983 indicated very low academic achievement in public schools. This resulted in states taking up more responsibility and involvement. This report, A Nation at Risk, suggested that American students were outperformed on international academic tests by students from other industrial societies. Statistics also suggested that American test scores were declining over time. As a result, most states have implemented reform strategies that emphasize more frequent testing conducted by states, more effective state testing, and more state-mandated curriculum requirements.
The federal government's activities in the field of education have further centralized American schooling. The Smith-Hughes Act of 1917 helped create vocational programs in high schools, and the GI Bill of 1944 was the first important federal effort to provide financial aid for military veterans to attend college. In addition, federal civil rights laws require all schools and colleges to conform to national standards of educational equality.

The federal commitment to improve and finance public schools expanded enormously when Congress passed the National Defense Education Act of 1958 and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. In these two landmark statutes, Congress addressed for the first time such broad problems as expanding educational opportunity for poor children and improving instruction in pivotal but usually neglected subjects, such as science, mathematics, and foreign languages. Other federal acts that addressed educational issues in this period were the Vocational Education Act of 1963, the Manpower Development and Training Act of 1963, and the International Education Act of 1966.

Other Issues
In spite of the belief that public education should be available to every child irrespective of race, gender or economic status, this has not happened in reality. Discrimination in schools on the basis of race and gender has always persisted. Girls were not admitted in schools until many years after the establishment of schools, and even then, they were not taught the same subjects as boys. Since the 1950s, public policy toward education has addressed discrimination issues in education more than educational issues. The federal government has especially been concerned with issues of equality in school districts.
Racial Equality
The first blacks arrived as slaves in the colonies in 1619. By the middle of the nineteenth century there were 4.5 million blacks in this country. The earliest education given to them was by the missionaries to convert them to Christianity. The Society for the Propagation of the Gospel in Foreign Parts established many schools. The southern states opposed the education of blacks because these states were still favoring slavery. In spite of individual efforts, the education of blacks remained very low until Lincoln issued the Emancipation Proclamation in 1863. The literacy rate that was around 5% in the 1860s rose to 40% in 1890 and by 1910 it was at 70%.
During the 1950s segregation by race in public and private schools was still common in the United States. The South had separate schools for African Americans and whites and this system had been upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in Plessy v. Ferguson (1896). In the North no such laws existed, but racial segregation was still common in schools. Segregation usually resulted in inferior education for blacks. Average public expenditures for white schools exceeded expenditures for black schools. Teachers in white schools generally received higher pay than did teachers in black schools, and facilities in most white schools were far superior to facilities in most black schools.

In 1954 the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional. Despite vigorous resistance for many years by many southern states, by 1980 the federal courts had largely succeeded in eliminating the system of legalized segregation in southern schools.

Even after the court rulings, it was difficult to eliminate discrimination in practice. Many whites and middle class blacks had moved out of central cities by the 1970s, leaving poor blacks and rising populations of Hispanic Americans to attend urban schools. Native Americans, who had already lost all their lands to whites, also face the additional burden of poverty, which keeps them away from schools.

Most federally mandated desegregation efforts have been aimed at increasing educational achievement among African American students. However, many educators cite continued inequality in educational opportunities for Hispanic American students.

Gender Equality
Women have been equally discriminated against in American schools. Even in coeducational schools, practically no encouragement was given to the girls. Prominent women educators who have contributed significantly include Catharine Esther Beecher, Emma Willard, Mary Lyon, Jane Addams, Susan Anthony, Mrs. Carl Schurz, and Mary McLeod. They established higher-level institutions for women and offered subjects that earlier educators deemed unnecessary for women. The first coeducational college was Oberlin College (founded in 1833), the first enduring all-women's college was Vassar College (1861), and the first graduate school for women was at Bryn Mawr College (1880).
The emergence of the women's rights movement during the 1960s was a boost against sexual discrimination. Title IX of the 1972 federal Education Amendments prohibited discrimination on the basis of sex in educational institutions that received federal aid. Educators are of the opinion that even after all these measures, women do not get equal pay in jobs. Discrimination in professional jobs still exists.

Conclusions
The advancement in technology and learning methods has brought about a lot of change for the better in the public education. However, other social problems that affect the public schools today are violence, drugs, alcohol, smoking, and sex-related issues. The American public school has always been looked upon as a system that inculcates the ideals of equality and freedom in the individual. It has changed historically according to the upheavals in the society. But the pitiful standard of high school education today has left many educators wondering how to improve the system, so much so that in his first week of ascending the Presidency, Bush introduced his “No child left behind” education plan. It is eventually the role of the public that should influence public education, which is not much prevalent now.
Sources
A History of Public Education In The United States
 
No it didn't. I know it didn't because I was there. The schools didn't start becoming more liberal until mostly after the 70's and it wasn't until the late 80's and the 90's that I saw the extremism beginning to show up in classroom content, just about the time people started looking at the federal government as the primary driving force behind education. And that was also about the time that the 60's rebel generation was taking over the power in the classrooms, administration, government, and the media.

I'm not sure how anyone could possibly mistake the US Federal Government as anything remotely similar to "the primary driving force behind education."

At best, it is a distant second.

Almost none of a public school's budget comes from federal funding.
The LOCAL elected school board writes school policy.

It wasn't until the 70's and 80's that women began to work at jobs that allowed them to be independant (career women) in significant numbers. It was about this time that the divorce rate rose to 50%+ all marriages. Without a stay-at-home mom, and many broken homes, values that had been "traditional" began to disappear. Schools began to see increased discipline problems, adolescent drug and alcohol use, etc.,etc.

This had nothing to do with "liberal values" displacing "traditional values," unless you consider a liberal value as one that encouraged women to be more than nurses, secretaries, airline stewardesses, and hairdressers. Frankly I'd expect that if anyone had a daughter, then they would appreciate this value.

I was a daughter then and I simply see things differently than you do. I never once felt restricted to strictly 'women's' jobs and yes, the more the 'liberal values' began to rip the families apart, the more negative consequences we began to see in that. Women's liberation--definitely a liberal value--went way to the left to denigrate men and fathers and exalt the independent woman who needed no man while those of more conservative values didn't feel any need for liberation because we already were. But the "men aren't necessary' mantra had its effect and the trend of fatherless homes began to escalate to dangerous proportions with all the negative consequences resulting from that. It became fashionable to abort the conceived baby rather than adjust the lifestyle to accommodate a new life, and that too has had its negative consequences.

Conservative values are for two parent homes as much as possible, parenting, feeding your kids, disciplining your kids and teaching important values, parental involvement, knowing what was in the curriculum your kids are learning, and expecting kids to be educated and not promoted because it was too much trouble to see that they learned the material before pushing them on, knowing your kids' teachers, and paying attention.

It was not conservative values that changed all that.

Wait a minute...are you saying that Women's Liberation, certainly by name alone if nothing else, is a Liberal value that has been harmful to society as a whole? That girls shouldn't be taught Math, least they become Man-hating-rug-munching, scientists and engineers?
 
I'm not sure how anyone could possibly mistake the US Federal Government as anything remotely similar to "the primary driving force behind education."

At best, it is a distant second.

Almost none of a public school's budget comes from federal funding.
The LOCAL elected school board writes school policy.

It wasn't until the 70's and 80's that women began to work at jobs that allowed them to be independant (career women) in significant numbers. It was about this time that the divorce rate rose to 50%+ all marriages. Without a stay-at-home mom, and many broken homes, values that had been "traditional" began to disappear. Schools began to see increased discipline problems, adolescent drug and alcohol use, etc.,etc.

This had nothing to do with "liberal values" displacing "traditional values," unless you consider a liberal value as one that encouraged women to be more than nurses, secretaries, airline stewardesses, and hairdressers. Frankly I'd expect that if anyone had a daughter, then they would appreciate this value.

I was a daughter then and I simply see things differently than you do. I never once felt restricted to strictly 'women's' jobs and yes, the more the 'liberal values' began to rip the families apart, the more negative consequences we began to see in that. Women's liberation--definitely a liberal value--went way to the left to denigrate men and fathers and exalt the independent woman who needed no man while those of more conservative values didn't feel any need for liberation because we already were. But the "men aren't necessary' mantra had its effect and the trend of fatherless homes began to escalate to dangerous proportions with all the negative consequences resulting from that. It became fashionable to abort the conceived baby rather than adjust the lifestyle to accommodate a new life, and that too has had its negative consequences.

Conservative values are for two parent homes as much as possible, parenting, feeding your kids, disciplining your kids and teaching important values, parental involvement, knowing what was in the curriculum your kids are learning, and expecting kids to be educated and not promoted because it was too much trouble to see that they learned the material before pushing them on, knowing your kids' teachers, and paying attention.

It was not conservative values that changed all that.

Wait a minute...are you saying that Women's Liberation, certainly by name alone if nothing else, is a Liberal value that has been harmful to society as a whole? That girls shouldn't be taught Math, least they become Man-hating-rug-munching, scientists and engineers?

I am saying women's liberation as the liberal's taught it was a viscious, man-hating, marriage destroying, destructive force in our society and has done severe damage to the kids. Women's liberation that existed before that was freeing, liberating, and was bringing down the last existing barriers and punching through the glass ceilings without creating all the negative consequences. Never in my life have I been taught that there are some things women are incapable of doing or that I should not follow my dream because it was 'unsuitable' or 'off limits' to women. Nor was I required to see men as some sort of inferior species that accomplished things only by bullying or subjecting women.
 
Last edited:
I was a daughter then and I simply see things differently than you do. I never once felt restricted to strictly 'women's' jobs and yes, the more the 'liberal values' began to rip the families apart, the more negative consequences we began to see in that. Women's liberation--definitely a liberal value--went way to the left to denigrate men and fathers and exalt the independent woman who needed no man while those of more conservative values didn't feel any need for liberation because we already were. But the "men aren't necessary' mantra had its effect and the trend of fatherless homes began to escalate to dangerous proportions with all the negative consequences resulting from that. It became fashionable to abort the conceived baby rather than adjust the lifestyle to accommodate a new life, and that too has had its negative consequences.

Conservative values are for two parent homes as much as possible, parenting, feeding your kids, disciplining your kids and teaching important values, parental involvement, knowing what was in the curriculum your kids are learning, and expecting kids to be educated and not promoted because it was too much trouble to see that they learned the material before pushing them on, knowing your kids' teachers, and paying attention.

It was not conservative values that changed all that.

Wait a minute...are you saying that Women's Liberation, certainly by name alone if nothing else, is a Liberal value that has been harmful to society as a whole? That girls shouldn't be taught Math, least they become Man-hating-rug-munching, scientists and engineers?

I am saying women's liberation as the liberal's taught it was a viscious, man-hating, marriage destroying, destructive force in our society and has done severe damage to the kids. Women's liberation that existed before that was freeing, liberating, and was bringing down the last existing barriers and punching through the glass ceilings without creating all the negative consequences. Never in my life have I been taught that there are some things women are incapable of doing or that I should not follow my dream because it was 'unsuitable' or 'off limits' to women. Nor was I required to see men as some sort of inferior species that accomplished things only by bullying or subjecting women.

:eusa_eh:

Why do you think there was some sort of "Liberal Conspiracy?"

Doesn't it make perfectly good sense that women that were "free" and "liberated," might enjoy an array of choices other than being dependant on a male income?
 
I was a daughter then and I simply see things differently than you do. I never once felt restricted to strictly 'women's' jobs and yes, the more the 'liberal values' began to rip the families apart, the more negative consequences we began to see in that. Women's liberation--definitely a liberal value--went way to the left to denigrate men and fathers and exalt the independent woman who needed no man while those of more conservative values didn't feel any need for liberation because we already were. But the "men aren't necessary' mantra had its effect and the trend of fatherless homes began to escalate to dangerous proportions with all the negative consequences resulting from that. It became fashionable to abort the conceived baby rather than adjust the lifestyle to accommodate a new life, and that too has had its negative consequences.

Conservative values are for two parent homes as much as possible, parenting, feeding your kids, disciplining your kids and teaching important values, parental involvement, knowing what was in the curriculum your kids are learning, and expecting kids to be educated and not promoted because it was too much trouble to see that they learned the material before pushing them on, knowing your kids' teachers, and paying attention.

It was not conservative values that changed all that.

Wait a minute...are you saying that Women's Liberation, certainly by name alone if nothing else, is a Liberal value that has been harmful to society as a whole? That girls shouldn't be taught Math, least they become Man-hating-rug-munching, scientists and engineers?

I am saying women's liberation as the liberal's taught it was a viscious, man-hating, marriage destroying, destructive force in our society and has done severe damage to the kids. Women's liberation that existed before that was freeing, liberating, and was bringing down the last existing barriers and punching through the glass ceilings without creating all the negative consequences. Never in my life have I been taught that there are some things women are incapable of doing or that I should not follow my dream because it was 'unsuitable' or 'off limits' to women. Nor was I required to see men as some sort of inferior species that accomplished things only by bullying or subjecting women.

What a sad note for a former feminist to call the women's liberation movement man-hating, and marriage destroying.

You must really hate liberals. You continually blame us for everything that's wrong with your world. Sad.
 
What a sad note for a former feminist to call the women's liberation movement man-hating, and marriage destroying.

It’s also sad the poster made such accusations without providing any evidence.

You must really hate liberals. You continually blame us for everything that's wrong with your world. Sad.
In which case facts and evidence aren’t necessary, only rightist dogma.
 
What a sad note for a former feminist to call the women's liberation movement man-hating, and marriage destroying.

It’s also sad the poster made such accusations without providing any evidence.

You must really hate liberals. You continually blame us for everything that's wrong with your world. Sad.
In which case facts and evidence aren’t necessary, only rightist dogma.

Right wing hate speech, pure and simple.
 
What a sad note for a former feminist to call the women's liberation movement man-hating, and marriage destroying.

It’s also sad the poster made such accusations without providing any evidence.

You must really hate liberals. You continually blame us for everything that's wrong with your world. Sad.
In which case facts and evidence aren’t necessary, only rightist dogma.

Right wing hate speech, pure and simple.
not so much hate but jealousy.
 
Wait a minute...are you saying that Women's Liberation, certainly by name alone if nothing else, is a Liberal value that has been harmful to society as a whole? That girls shouldn't be taught Math, least they become Man-hating-rug-munching, scientists and engineers?

I am saying women's liberation as the liberal's taught it was a viscious, man-hating, marriage destroying, destructive force in our society and has done severe damage to the kids. Women's liberation that existed before that was freeing, liberating, and was bringing down the last existing barriers and punching through the glass ceilings without creating all the negative consequences. Never in my life have I been taught that there are some things women are incapable of doing or that I should not follow my dream because it was 'unsuitable' or 'off limits' to women. Nor was I required to see men as some sort of inferior species that accomplished things only by bullying or subjecting women.

:eusa_eh:

Why do you think there was some sort of "Liberal Conspiracy?"

Doesn't it make perfectly good sense that women that were "free" and "liberated," might enjoy an array of choices other than being dependant on a male income?

You aren't reading what I am writing. Nor understanding it apparently. I said nothing about women being dependent on a male income. I didn't even infer such a thing. I said nothing about women being dependent on men period and didn't even infer such a thing.

Nor did I suggest that the "men are unnecessary" kind of women's lib was a conspiracy. It was one of those misguided movements that we see from time to time. It seems to have pretty much run its course, but the ugly legacy of it does linger on. In my opinion it did do a terrible disservice to the values in this country most especially for the children.

But it is getting away from the thesis of the thread which is the government pushing of values in the school so can we move back to that?
 
I was there, right at the beginning! Boy was I a "women's libber". I was fed up with male employers putting their hands up my skirt. A skirt that in those days was MANDATED by company rules. Pat me on the head and take credit for all my work. Burned me UP! Burn the Bra!

Then the feminists took over. The movement was poisoned by hyperinsanity. It wasn't equality, WE wanted equality. They wanted accommodation for their failings.
 
I was there, right at the beginning! Boy was I a "women's libber". I was fed up with male employers putting their hands up my skirt. A skirt that in those days was MANDATED by company rules. Pat me on the head and take credit for all my work. Burned me UP! Burn the Bra!

Then the feminists took over. The movement was poisoned by hyperinsanity. It wasn't equality, WE wanted equality. They wanted accommodation for their failings.

My sister, then 19 was working for an insurance company in 1964, I was a junior in high school. I remember her complaining one evening that she was training a new employee, a man, and he was earning more than she.

I remember when I was 14, a friend who had visited his sister who was in the Navy and stationed in the South, telling us that public restrooms & water fountains had signs, "Whites Only".

I remember wondering why some people are so mean, nay, evil. And now I know, bigotry and ignorance,; on display everyday on this message board.
 
I am saying women's liberation as the liberal's taught it was a viscious, man-hating, marriage destroying, destructive force in our society and has done severe damage to the kids. Women's liberation that existed before that was freeing, liberating, and was bringing down the last existing barriers and punching through the glass ceilings without creating all the negative consequences. Never in my life have I been taught that there are some things women are incapable of doing or that I should not follow my dream because it was 'unsuitable' or 'off limits' to women. Nor was I required to see men as some sort of inferior species that accomplished things only by bullying or subjecting women.

:eusa_eh:

Why do you think there was some sort of "Liberal Conspiracy?"

Doesn't it make perfectly good sense that women that were "free" and "liberated," might enjoy an array of choices other than being dependant on a male income?

You aren't reading what I am writing. Nor understanding it apparently. I said nothing about women being dependent on a male income. I didn't even infer such a thing. I said nothing about women being dependent on men period and didn't even infer such a thing.

Nor did I suggest that the "men are unnecessary" kind of women's lib was a conspiracy. It was one of those misguided movements that we see from time to time. It seems to have pretty much run its course, but the ugly legacy of it does linger on. In my opinion it did do a terrible disservice to the values in this country most especially for the children.

But it is getting away from the thesis of the thread which is the government pushing of values in the school so can we move back to that?

You said:

"Women's liberation that existed before that was freeing, liberating, and was bringing down the last existing barriers and punching through the glass ceilings without creating all the negative consequences...."

"before that" implies there was something...some event?...some "misguided movement" that you believe was completely spontaneous, yet was also a result of some sort of "Liberal" (Women's Liberation Dogma). This is an absurd dichototomy: "Misguided" means that it was badly lead, impliying that there was SOME LEADERSHIP. Guess what? this means that there was a PLAN, or a CONSPIRACY.

You also say that Women's Liberation...was "freeing, liberating." This IMPLIES that there was something holding women back; that something was restraining them. Help me out here: If it wasn't MEN, then what was it???? I didn't know that it was a huge leap of logic to believe that it was women's dependance on income from men that was the primary restraint on their freedom! Please enlighten me! Were they literally being chained to kitchen sinks???:eek:

The fact is that women are just as deserving as men in the employment pool where there are no concerns about physical strength. They took jobs that were outside the TRADITIONAL home, but continued to have kids: Unhappily this often left less time for them to teach value lessons, and the result was a bunch of unmannered idjots attending public school. Desperate to correct the problem of undisiplined students, schools began teaching values. Nothing here is any result of an Evul Liberal Agenda unless you believe that a Woman's Place is At Home.
 
:eusa_eh:

Why do you think there was some sort of "Liberal Conspiracy?"

Doesn't it make perfectly good sense that women that were "free" and "liberated," might enjoy an array of choices other than being dependant on a male income?

You aren't reading what I am writing. Nor understanding it apparently. I said nothing about women being dependent on a male income. I didn't even infer such a thing. I said nothing about women being dependent on men period and didn't even infer such a thing.

Nor did I suggest that the "men are unnecessary" kind of women's lib was a conspiracy. It was one of those misguided movements that we see from time to time. It seems to have pretty much run its course, but the ugly legacy of it does linger on. In my opinion it did do a terrible disservice to the values in this country most especially for the children.

But it is getting away from the thesis of the thread which is the government pushing of values in the school so can we move back to that?

You said:

"Women's liberation that existed before that was freeing, liberating, and was bringing down the last existing barriers and punching through the glass ceilings without creating all the negative consequences...."

"before that" implies there was something...some event?...some "misguided movement" that you believe was completely spontaneous, yet was also a result of some sort of "Liberal" (Women's Liberation Dogma). This is an absurd dichototomy: "Misguided" means that it was badly lead, impliying that there was SOME LEADERSHIP. Guess what? this means that there was a PLAN, or a CONSPIRACY.

You also say that Women's Liberation...was "freeing, liberating." This IMPLIES that there was something holding women back; that something was restraining them. Help me out here: If it wasn't MEN, then what was it???? I didn't know that it was a huge leap of logic to believe that it was women's dependance on income from men that was the primary restraint on their freedom! Please enlighten me! Were they literally being chained to kitchen sinks???:eek:

The fact is that women are just as deserving as men in the employment pool where there are no concerns about physical strength. They took jobs that were outside the TRADITIONAL home, but continued to have kids: Unhappily this often left less time for them to teach value lessons, and the result was a bunch of unmannered idjots attending public school. Desperate to correct the problem of undisiplined students, schools began teaching values. Nothing here is any result of an Evul Liberal Agenda unless you believe that a Woman's Place is At Home.

What she means is women's liberation when SHE was a part of the movement was freeing and liberating and as soon as she left it went down hill.
 

Forum List

Back
Top