Showing posts with label family values. Show all posts
Showing posts with label family values. Show all posts

Thursday, December 20, 2007

Abstinence Education Gets an F

On the popular kids' TV show Zoey 101, she plays a butter-wouldn't-melt-in-her mouth goodie-goodie. In real life, her character was a little different. Jamie Lynn Spears, the 16-year-old sister of troubled pop star Britney Spears, announced her pregnancy to the world Wednesday.

In an "exclusive interview" with OK magazine, the younger Spears said she was "shocked" to be in the family way after having sex with her boyfriend, Casey Aldridge, the 19-year-old son of a papermill worker in her home state of Louisiana, whom she reportedly met at church.


So let me get this straight Lil ol teen ager Jamie Lynn has sexual intercourse and is shocked she got pregnant. She is not on the pill, her boyfriend did not wrap his willy and she is shocked she got pregnant. Her mother obviously failed to discuss the 'facts of life' with her, but she was planning on writing a book on parenting for a Christian publisher.

This is an excellent example of the failure of the right wing politically correct morality of abstinence and of abstinence education. It is also an excellent example, as if we needed one, of why family planning education/sex education/relationship education is needed in our public education system. Leaving sex ed up to parents means more teen pregnancies.

Now here is another point, Jamie Lynn told her family she missed her period back in November, why didn't she take the morning after pill? And while the white social conservatives condemn black American teen mothers, they will be gushing all over lil Ms. Spears. She well be redeemed in their eyes because given the choice of not being a teen mother,she chose to keep the baby. The fetus fetishists will embrace her 'choice' and forgive her the sin of teen pregnancy.

Janie Lynn Spears is a bad example to teens every where for the stupidity of having unprotected sex and sex without birth control, and for believing being a mother at 16 is a 'choice' when it is in reality a consequence of stupidity.

Fortunately the Spears family is a living breathing example of stupidity when it comes to children and child rearing. An example in the negative. And example of what is wrong when it comes to the real life consequences of the PC morality of Christian Social Conservative Family Values.


Every child a wanted child does not mean it's ok to have an 'accidental' child. We can see from Britney's predicament what happens when this family has children by accident.

SEE

Unsafe Abortions Continue


God Is Pro Abortion

Abortion, Adoption, or Abandonment


Procreation To Save The White Race

Britney Needs A Liberal

Miss Nevada


Feminizing the Proletariat

Kids Are Commodities

Abolishing Adolescence

Pro Life?



Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
,
, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
, ,

Sunday, December 02, 2007

Gay Old Communists

I found this terrific graphic at one of my anarchist pal's blogs; Kehlkopfmikrofon . It visually reveals the sinister link between the Gay Agenda and the Communist Agenda to undermine faith, family and the American way. Say it ain't so.

Russians in love.

"Thank you comrade for rescuing me from Nazism."





















And don't forget them commies were once America's friends during WWII.



















Which of course was an embarrassment at the end of the war so they created a witch hunt to purge commies from America.

After all as we all know in Uncle Joe's Russia then and still today, just like in Bonapartist Iran, there are no gays just happy peasants and the Glorious Soldiers of the Red Army.

Just like there were no Gay men or women in America until they were discovered after WWII.


Before
Joseph McCarthy began his witch hunt began against commies in the U.S. State department he began with a witch hunt on homosexuals.

And of course homosexuals did not exist in America before they were publicly outed post WWII by McCarthy's HUAC. Because his witch hunt began before Kinsey published his studies on American Sexuality.

In fact thanks to HUAC's witch hunts the commies were some of the folks who then were active in creating the first Male Homosexual Society to fight for their rights; The Mattachine Society.

Like dear departed Harry Hay. Who was not only a communist but a Wobbly and a Pagan.

You can't hardly separate homosexuals from subversives ... A man of low morality is a menace to the government, whatever he is, and they are all tied up together. —Senator Wherry in New York Post, 1950 It may come as a surprise that the gay movement not only began in the 1950s, but that its founders were former communists and radicals. Harry Hay, who wrote the first call for a gay movement in 1948, had been a party member for 20 years, active in labor organizing and cultural work. The fact that these organizers had already spent most of their lives outside the mainstream no doubt prepared them for the risks involved in forming a gay organization. The modern gay movement in America began in Los Angeles, a city that symbolized the mobile, affluent lifestyle of Americans after the War. The Mattachine Foundation (to be distinguished from the post-1953 Mattachine Society) was formed in the winter of 1950 by a group of seven gay men gathered together by Hay. The name refers to the medieval Mattachines, troupes of men who traveled from village to village, taking up the cause of social justice in their ballads and dramas. By sharing and analyzing their personal experience as gay men, the Mattachine founders radically redefined the meaning of being gay and devised a comprehensive program for cultural and political liberation.

In 1951, Mattachine began sponsoring discussion groups. Years before women's “consciousness-raising groups,” Mattachine provided lesbians and gay men a similar opportunity to share openly, for the first time, their feelings and experiences.



So in effect the so called 'Gay Agenda' would never had come about if it weren't for Americas Uncle Joe, and his rabid anti-commie aide, Roy Cohn who was gay. Proving again that homophobia is created by self hate and denial. The Right Wing created the modern gay movement thanks to their need to repress freedom. Ironic eh?

Cohn confers with Senator McCarthy at the Army-McCarthy Hearings

Cohn confers with Senator McCarthy at the Army-McCarthy Hearings

In 1952 Joseph McCarthy appointed Roy Cohn as the chief counsel to the Government Committee on Operations of the Senate. Cohn had been recommended by Edgar Hoover, who had been impressed by his involvement in the prosecution of the Rosenburgs. Soon after Cohn was appointed, he recruited his best friend, David Schine, to become his chief consultant.

For some time opponents of McCarthy had been accumulating evidence concerning his homosexual relationships. Rumours began to circulate that Cohn and David Schine were having a sexual relationship. Although well-known by political journalists, it did not become public until Hank Greenspun published an article in the Las Vagas Sun in 25th October, 1952.



And of course these folks who fought for Gay Rights in those dark days coincidentally came from the Left Coast, home to the Beats and the rising Youth Culture that would create a new American 'Counter Culture' in the Sixties. Influenced as they were by Kinsey and the rediscovery of earlier American Radicalism that the post war social amnesia of the Witch Hunts had failed to suppress.

The Daughters of Bilitis /bɪ’li:tis/ (DOB), considered to be the first lesbian rights organization in the United States, was formed in San Francisco, California in 1955. The group was conceived as a social alternative to lesbian bars, which were considered illegal and thus subject to raids and police harassment. It lasted for fourteen years and became a tool of education for lesbians, gay men, researchers, and mental health professionals.

As the DOB gained members, their focus shifted to providing support to women who were afraid to come out, by educating them about their rights and their history. Historian Lillian Faderman declared, "Its very establishment in the midst of witch-hunts and police harassment was an act of courage, since members always had to fear that they were under attack, not because of what they did, but merely because of who they were."

Daughters of Bilitis (D.O.B.) was founded in San Francisco, California in 1955. The name of the group comes from the book Song of Bilitis by French author Pierre Louy, which contains love poems between women. In 1955, the group only had eight members. In the years to come, the group grew considerably. D.O.B. provided a place for lesbians to meet outside the bars, documented their lives, and promoted civil rights. One of their most significant achievements was a national newsletter for lesbians, titled The Ladder. They soon started other U.S. chapters, and even one in Australia. D.O.B. held their first national convention in San Francisco in 1960.

For a time, Daughters of Bilitis and The Mattachine Society joined together in "Common Cause". Some women even wrote for Mattachine's ONE Magazine. As the women's movement began to grow in the U.S., it became apparent that the men of Mattachine showed little desire to champion women's issues. At the same time, the women's movement was not particularly welcoming. The National Organization for Women (N.O.W.) was afraid that lesbian involvement would only bring further hostility from the media and a male dominated world. They called lesbians "the lavender menace" and sought to eject them from the movement.



Revisionist history continues today in America in Tom Brokaw's new book on the Sixties that overlooks the importance of the Mattachine Society and the Lesbian; Daughters of Bilitis Society and the rise of the Gay Rights Movement. .

BOOM! Voices of the Sixties: Personal Reflections on the '60s and Today shares Brokaw's perspectives and personal accounts of 1960s issues including Vietnam and the civil rights movement.

One glaring Boomer-era omission, however, was the gay rights movement. Brokaw, on a recent CNN appearance, says that the gay rights movement "came later," and he didn't intend to slight the movement by not including it.

While the impact of the movement was marked notably in the late 1960s by the Stonewall riots, its momentum and progress were due in no small part to the work of Dr. Frank Kameny, who has written a letter to Brokaw and representatives of Random House Publishing Group.

"I write with no little indignation at the total absence of any slightest allusion to the gay movement for civil equality in your book 'Boom! Voices of the Sixties'. Your book simply deletes the momentous events of that decade which led to the vastly altered and improved status of gays in our culture today."

Ralph, a man approaching his eighties and one of my regulars at the Café, had a good chuckle when I told him about my research for this story. He said "I can answer that easily. The way we met in the old days was the three B’s: Balconies, Bushes and Baths; those are all gone now." Ralph stumbled into the gay scene in the ’50s by accident; he loved watching movies, especially John Wayne westerns. He was surprised by the number of people that would congregate in the dark balconies of the theaters. Then, when someone sat right next to him in an empty row he caught on. After that, Ralph became an avid moviegoer since that was the easiest way for him to meet other men.

Camille, in his 80s, spoke about the baths in New York City. He has a fondness for that era in the mid-’60s because "it provided a sanctuary where we could truly be ourselves. It was more than a place for sex, it was our entire social outlet. We could talk openly there but we couldn’t associate with one another in the real world. It was also a pure time, before AIDS entered the gay scene and changed everything."

Some men, especially those who grew up in rural areas, also spoke about "the bushes." Tom, a colleague in the Boston Gay Men’s Chorus, described growing up queer in Ohio in the early sixties as "not fun and very lonely." He heard rumors about the city park and that became the only means he could connect with other gay men. He said it was very dangerous and he was assaulted there once.

Clearly not all men met through sexual encounters back then. Some, like Jim, 74, sought out a socio-political gathering of gay men known as the Mattachine Society. He felt that finding the courage to attend that meeting was the only way to meet other men like himself.

The next generation of men I spoke with, the men who came out in the ’70s and ’80s, had new means available: personal ads and the bars. Although gay bars have been in existence for ages, people felt safer to venture out and frequent them, given the end of police raids thanks to Stonewall and the emerging gay rights movement.
Even today America hides the truth about the history of the Gay Rights movement because it is not just the history of the counter culture but reveals that mass movements are the direct result of the Right Wing Political Agenda to suppress freedom. This is the dialectic in action. As Michael Focualt points out in his History of Sexuality; suppress human rights around sexuality and you create movements for human rights for sexual freedom.

Foucault argues that we generally read the history of sexuality
since the 18th century in terms of what Foucault calls the "repressive hypothesis." The repressive hypothesis supposes that since the rise of the bourgeoisie, any expenditure of energy on purely pleasurable activities has been frowned upon. As a result, sex has been treated as a private, practical affair that only properly takes place between a husband and a wife. Sex outside these confines is not simply prohibited, but repressed. That is, there is not simply an effort to prevent extra-marital sex, but also an effort to make it unspeakable and unthinkable. Discourse on sexuality is confined to marriage.
That repression is something the right wing in Canada, America, Israel, Russia and Iran share in common to this day. And the fight for freedom is always counter to that agenda. Which is why the fight for gay rights is the fight for human rights.


The history of the world is none other than
the progress of the consciousness of freedom.
-George Hegel, 1821




SEE

War On Satan the Sodomite

Out Of The Hogwarts Broom Closet

Ezra Says Gay Bashers Are Muslims

Outing BP

Procreation To Save The White Race

Marx on Bigamy

Polygamy is NOT Polyamoury

The Sanctity of Marriage Debate

Whose Family Values?



Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, October 22, 2007

Make Family Day A National Holiday

We all need a day off in February. Heck if I had my way we would only work a four day week, period. But public holidays whether federal or provincial are great for workers. Either you get them off , get an extra vacation day or the boss has to pay you overtime. Now that's freedom of choice as the neo-con's like to call it.

Back to February. The last holiday/long weekend most Canadians get is in January. Then its the long wait till Easter for a break. Which gives us that four day week for two weeks. And productivity does not decline, instead consumption increases.

Anyways this is rather ironic. Coming as it does from the Party of Family Values.

Mr. Paul Dewar (Ottawa Centre, NDP) asks if the Harper Tories will let everyday Ontarians who work for the Federal government take off Dalton McGuinty's "Family Day" Pierre Poilievre (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, CPC) lashes back: We in fact provide 11 holidays to our federal employees, whereas the province of Ontario only provides 10, so there is an additional day. I hope the member is not suggesting that we take one of those holidays away from our public servants, many of whom live in his own riding.
Now since Family Day, like the Harper Reform/Alliance/Conservative party, originated in Alberta, you would think they would jump at the opportunity to make it a national holiday. I mean its a values issue isn't it. Time off wage slavery to spend time with your family consuming for the good of the nation.

Especially now that Ontario has created it's own Family Day and Manitoba and Saskatchewan are planning to do so too.

Of course when it was announced after the election of the McGuinty government the media wags showed their complete ignorance of its origin in Alberta. Typical.
Except it comes from the right wing conservative mouthpiece the National Post which should know better. Family day was a originally a Conservative idea.

Family Day

Steve Murray, National Post

Published: Friday, October 12, 2007

The best part about the Liberal majority is that even if you didn't vote for them, you still get that sweet February holiday. No hard feelings! Nice.

Unfortunately though, it's still going to be called "Family Day," which sounds like a half-price day at Canada's Wonderland and is insulting to people like me who have no family. I would also argue against "Friend Day" for a similar reason.

So, let's embrace vote-buying holidays and democracy by suggesting better names for Family Day to Mr. McGuinty! Send your suggestions (and reasons for the suggestions) to smurray@nationalpost.com and I will personally deliver the list to Mr. McGuinty, laminated so it can't be easily shredded.



Now like the former Liberal government who denied Federal Workers in Alberta the day off, instead giving them the first Monday in August off, the Harpocrites are now denying Ontario (as well as Alberta) federal workers the day off.

Meet the 'new' boss same as the old boss.

A major union representing thousands of federal workers in Ottawa has been swamped by phone calls from members demanding to know why they won't be enjoying Ontario's recently announced Family Day holiday in February.

Ed Cashman, regional executive vice-president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC), said calls began once re-elected Premier Dalton McGuinty confirmed his election promise of a new provincial statutory holiday.

"We're getting hundreds of phone calls in our office saying: 'hey, how come everybody else gets this and we don't'?" said Mr. Cashman.

"I can think of no better way for the government to get to work than to give the families a little more of what they value above all else - time together," the premier said at a news conference last week.

But Mr. Cashman said many families in Ottawa will not be granted this time.

"If you work for the public service, you're not going to get the day off," he said.

"Ironically, the Family Day is not going to reunite families because one member of the couple might be having the day off and the other will not."


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , , , , ,


Wednesday, September 05, 2007

Senator Craig Lies, Again


I am resigning he said, but apparently he had his fingers crossed. Ok he ain't gay, he didn't solicit sex in a public washroom, and he is not resigning. Wow just for lying he should be run out of town on a rail way before the end of the month.

But the
pièce de résistance is that he is so incompetent he left a message about his clever subterfuge on a complete strangers answering machine.

U.S. Sen. Larry Craig says he might reconsider his decision to resign if he clears his name in his arrest for disorderly conduct in a restroom sex scandal.

That’s why Craig chose his words carefully during his resignation speech Saturday in Boise, according to a voice mail message he mistakenly left on a stranger’s phone. In the message obtained by the Capitol Hill newspaper Roll Call, Craig tells a man named “Billy” that his choice of language is deliberate because it leaves the door open for him to stay in office.

In the message, Craig mentions that he has the support of Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., a backer who Craig saw as pivotal for giving his efforts political legitimacy.

The day after Craig’s resignation speech, Specter went on Fox News Sunday. “I'd still like to see Senator Craig fight this case," Specter said. "He left himself some daylight, when he said he "intends" to resign in 30 days. I'd like to see Larry Craig go back to court, seek to withdraw his guilty plea and fight the case.”

The voice is indeed Craig’s, spokesman Dan Whiting said. Whiting would not say who “Billy” is. Later that day, Craig announced that he had hired high-profile criminal defense lawyer Billy Martin, whom Craig hired to help him unravel the guilty plea Craig filed last month.

Whiting confirmed in an e-mail that his boss “intends to resign on Sept. 30th. However, he is fighting these charges, and should he be cleared before then, he may, and I emphasize may, not resign.”


H/T to Cowboys For Social Responsibility.


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, September 03, 2007

Abolishing Adolescence

Says the daddy of Alberta neo-cons; Ted Byfield.

One of those old-style teachers, who died in the early '50s, was Sir Richard Livingstone, a classics prof and educational philosopher.

Livingstone defined what he called "educable ages" of human beings.

We are most educable, he said, when we're very young, least educable in the teen years and early 20s, and become highly educable again as adults.

In effect, he was abolishing the whole concept of the teen-ager, the adolescent.

If nearly everybody at 12 or 13 joined the work force, they would in fact become part of the adult world.


Wait a minute weren't he and his neo-con pals the same ones that want to raise the age of sexual consent to 16. Decrying any sexual relations between teen agers and adults as child abuse and equating it with child porn. Yep they were.

And they are of course the same ones who want the age lowered, perhaps to 10, to be able to try teen-agers and children as Adults for crimes like murder. And we recently say how effective that was with the Stephen Truscott case.

Ted is the Pater Familas of the Byfield clan, whose influence is spread through out Canada's social conservative political lobbies.

Ted created the conservative weekly St. Johns Edmonton Report, which later became Alberta Report ,as part of a tax free religious charity associated with St. Johns Boys School. A school founded on the principle's of same sex education and spare the rod spoil the child.

At least one blogger noted this would be a return to the 19th Century use of child labour. Actually child labour in Canada was abolished through Factory Acts beginning in the late 19th Century. In Alberta child labour laws were not passed until 1917. And now child labour has returned in B.C. and Alberta.

And perhaps this is the real subtext of what Byfield is saying, since Alberta and B.C. are suffering from massive labour shortages.

Adolescence and the concept of the teen-ager began after WWI with the post war boom and the consumer culture created by Fordism. It became a mass cultural phenomena world wide after WWII. It is the result of the post war baby boom and concurrent development of post war industrialization. By the late fifties and early sixties, teen agers were in news first as juvenile delinquents, then as student rebels. The rise of the student movement and an anti-war culture, would result in the development of the New Left.

For the post Viet-Nam new right it became a simple formula; abolish adolescence and you abolish rebellion. And in their political agenda there are only children and adults.

In fact this idea of children between 12-21 being adults is a throw back to an much earlier age. The Medieval Age. Which is where Byfield remains to this day.


The image “http://www.webster.edu/~corbetre/images/aries-cover.jpg” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

Of all the books on childhood in the past, Philippe Aries's book Centuries of Childhood is probably the best known; one historian notes the frequency with which it is "cited as Holy Writ. " (18) Aries's central thesis is the opposite of mine: he argues that while the traditional child was happy because he was free to mix with many classes and ages, a special condition known as childhood was "invented" in the early modern period, resulting in a tyrannical concept of the family which destroyed friendship and sociability and deprived children of freedom, inflicting upon them for the first time the birch and the prison cell.

To prove this thesis Aries uses two main arguments. He first says that a separate concept of childhood was unknown in the early Middle Ages. "Medieval art until about the twelfth century did not know childhood or did not attempt to portray it" because artists were "unable to depict a child except as a man on a smaller scale."(19) Not only does this leave the art of antiquity in limbo, but it ignores voluminous evidence that medieval artists could, indeed, paint realistic children.(20) His etymological argument for a separate concept of childhood being unknown is also untenable.(21) In any case, the notion of the "invention of childhood" is so fuzzy that it is surprising that so many historians have recently picked it up.(22) His second argument, that the modern family restricts the child's freedom and increases the severity of punishment, runs counter to all the evidence.



The idea that adolescence was not recognized as a category of development separate from both childhood and adulthood is a more subtle distinction, but only just. The primary evidence concerning this outlook is the lack of any term for the modern-day word "adolescence." If they didn't have a word for it, they didn't comprehend it as a stage in life.

This argument also leaves something to be desired, especially when we remember that medieval people did not use the terms "feudalism" or "courtly love." And again, there is some evidence to refute the assumption. Inheritance laws set the age of majority at 21, expecting a certain level of maturity before entrusting a young individual with financial responsibility. And there was concern expressed for the "wild youth" of teenage apprentices and students; the mischief that youth can cause was frequently seen as a stage that people pass through on the way to becoming "sad and wise."

In towns and cities, children would grow to become the laborers and apprentices that made a craft business grow. And here, too, there are signs that society as a whole understood the value of children. For example, in medieval London, laws regarding the rights of orphans were careful to place a child with someone who could not benefit from his death.

Among the nobility, children would perpetuate the family name and increase the family's holdings through advancement in service to their liege lords and through advantageous marriages. Some of these unions were planned while the bride- and groom-to-be were still in the cradle.

"The psychodynamics of mystics, their symbol formations and their actions are based on excessive early trauma. . . . There is evidence that medieval mystics
were deprived and also emotionally and sexually abused as children."

-- Childhood and Fantasies of Medieval Mystics, Dr. Ralph Frenken

". . . Frenken's mystics each attempted to achieve their desired transcendent knowledge, albeit through perverse methods resulting from their horrid childhoods -- they were merely attempting to create psychic homeostasis."

"The production of pain, bleeding, religious symbol scarification, self-flagellation
and wearing body-injuring garments all served the mystics' purpose of achieving unity with the divine as a substitute for childhood psychic abuse, of merging with an idealized Mother and as a defense against normal sexual emotions."

"Whatever ecstasy they may have achieved was short­lived because it
never addressed a resolution of childhood trauma."

-- Jerrold Atlas, Ph.D.

The idea of childhood is disappearing.

Writing a new preface three years ago for the re-released version of the book, Postman, who teaches media and political culture at New York University, confessed that, "sad to say," he saw little to change in his 1982 text. "What was happening then is happening now. Only worse."

In Postman's view, the postmodern culture is propelling us back to a time not altogether different from the Middle Ages, a time before literacy, a time before childhood had taken hold as an idea. Obviously, there were children in medieval times, but no real childhood, he says, because there was no distinction between what adults and children knew.

Postman's book recalls the coarse village festivals depicted in medieval paintings - men and women besotted with drink, groping one another with children all around them. It describes the feculent conditions and manners drawn from the writings of Erasmus and others in which adults and children shared open lives of lust and squalor.

"The absence of literacy, the absence of the idea of education, the absence of the idea of shame - these are the reasons why the idea of childhood did not exist in the medieval world," Postman writes.

Only after the development of the printing press, and of literacy, did childhood begin to emerge, he says. Despite pressures on children to work in the mines and factories of an industrial age, the need for literacy and education gradually became apparent, first among the elite, then among the masses. Childhood became defined as the time it took to nurture and transform a child into a civilized adult who could read and comprehend complex information. The view American settlers was that only gradually could children attain civility and adulthood through "literacy, education, reason, self-control and shame."

It was during that time, Postman notes, that public education flourished, that children began celebrating birthdays and that a popular culture especially for kids developed around games and songs. Postman places the high-water mark for childhood at between 1850 and 1950.


"Childhood was invented in the seventeenth century."

So begins chapter seven of Neil Postman's Building a Bridge to the 18th Century. I highly recommend the entire book, but this chapter in and of itself deserves special consideration. Postman was a brilliant writer and social critic, rest his soul, and I wouldn't presume to improve on his presentation. What I can do is summarize and tantalize enough that you'll head out to the nearest library and pick up a copy of the book yourself. Or at least internalize and spread the meme.

Of course children existed prior to the seventeenth century, but that's not the same thing at all. Childhood is a social construction, a collective agreement to set aside some time between infancy and adulthood largely free of responsibilities that is enforced by behaviors, social norms, and laws. (What this time is for is a major question that we'll get to later.)


Hugh Cunningham has taken on a formidable challenge in this book: describing the history not only of the Western idea of childhood, but the actual experience of children over a span of nearly five hundred years.

The book first explores the evolution of ideas about childhood in the Western world. Beginning with a brief but lucid examination of the classical and medieval world, where the most important change in the notion of childhood came with the spread of Christianity, Cunningham turns to the period beginning about 1500. His aim here is to describe the rise of what he calls a "middle class ideology of childhood." This ideology has its origins in the thinking of a succession of figures, the first of whom was Erasmus. Erasmus's stress upon the importance of the father and of education--for boys, at any rate--was the first step in the creation of a distinctly modern vision of childhood. Interestingly, Cunningham argues that the Reformation's importance was in advancing the notion of the importance of education for Catholics and Protestants alike. Though he concedes that there were differences--the Puritan obsession with original sin and the Catholic elevation of the priest above the familial patriarch, for example--Cunningham prefers to stress continuities across the religious divide. John Locke, the next important contributor in Cunningham's view, was important for undermining the idea of original sin, and for encouraging the secularization of the western ideal of childhood. It was left for Rousseau to follow Locke's secular ideal to its logical conclusion: nature, rather than the Church, should be the director of a child's growth. These romantic ideals were immensely influential among educated Europeans, and were popularized still more after the publication of Wordsworth's "Ode on Intimations of Mortality from Recollections of Early Childhood." This work, says Cunningham, "came to encapsulate what was thought of as a romantic attitude to childhood: that is, that childhood was the best part of life" (p. 74). And unlike Locke's own gendered notion of childhood, Wordsworth and Rousseau made no distinctions between boys and girls; children of both genders were "godlike, fit to be worshipped, and the embodiment of hope" (p. 78).

Of course these ideas were the product of elites, and until the nineteenth century rarely applied to any other children, as Cunningham recognizes. The rest of his book traces the ways in which this "middle class ideology" came to be applied to all children. In the early part of the period, Erasmian prescriptions had no place in the experience of the vast majority of children, who were trained from about the age of seven to take their place in the adult world of work. But beginning in the seventeenth century, education, sponsored by churches and lay charity, began to have a broader impact. Many of the free schools founded in English towns in the period, for example, followed, if only loosely, Lockean ideals. While their goal was usually to teach a useful trade, they also provided literacy skills and made the experience of schooling more common for the non-elite majority.

Industrialization, Cunningham argues, did little to alter the structure of the family, but it radically changed the experience of its members, as people moved from agriculture to industry. Children, accustomed to work in the fields, quite naturally took their places in the factory work force. Here the Romantic ideal began to have its effect upon the majority of children, as middle class reformers pressured Western states to limit the impact of industry upon children. A hallmark of the century after 1750, Cunningham tells us, was the dramatic increase in state intervention in child-related matters. Regulation imposed upon child labor was one feature of these policies. Eighteenth-century governments had deliberately encouraged the rapid introduction of children into the work force, teaching them trades, but by the mid-nineteenth century the goal was to exclude them from the shop floor. Most important of all was the introduction of compulsory schooling. Although feeble state efforts at requiring education had been underway since the early eighteenth century, it was not until the latter half of the nineteenth that school became a common experience for all.

While compulsory education reinforced the Romantic ideal of childhood, Cunningham points out that Western states had far more in mind than assuring fun and games for youth. Increasingly sophisticated economies required sophisticated skills. Schools served the interests of governments and their rulers: children pledged allegiance, saluted portraits of kaisers and kings, and learned about the benefits of the status quo. Moreover, the state's increased role in the lives of children--not simply through schooling, but also through public health programs and social work, both of which emerge simultaneously with the public school, "entailed an unprecedented degree of surveillance of the working-class population" (p. 168). Despite the utility of such policies for governments, there is no doubt but that the Romantic ideal of childhood dominated public action. Even science did more to serve the ideal than challenge it; pediatrics, a branch of medicine unknown much before the turn of the century, helped ensure a dramatic fall in infant mortality rates, a shift Cunningham emphasizes is of great importance.



http://www.artesacra.com/gallery/images/samples/honthorst_childhood_of_christ.jpg




SEE:

Jamestown; The Birth of Capitalism

Smurfs are Commies

Oliver In Alberta

Temp Workers For Timmies

Foley's Follies=Sexual Harassment



Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , ,
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,, , ,
, ,

Wednesday, August 29, 2007

Senator Craig's Tearoom

Senator Larry Craig who likes to have sex in public washrooms asserts he is not gay.

"Idaho Senator Asserts: 'I Never Have Been Gay'."


He may be 'technically' correct. Some 'straight' men like to have anonymous sex in public washrooms too.

For over 100 years, police surveillance and sting operations have targeted public toilets - or "tearooms" - frequented by gay men in search of sex.

But tearooms were also frequented by other classes. The washrooms of New York's subway system were "(the) meeting place for everyone," as one man put it. A businessman on his way home to his wife and children in one of the outer boroughs could engage in quick sex at the end of the workday but still not identify as gay.
And somethings never change.....

10% Of Straight Men Have Sex With Men, New York

Almost 10% of men who said they were straight had had sex with at least one man during the last twelve months, according to a new study carried out by the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene. 70% of them were married. Many of these men said they had not used a condom and had not been tested for HIV.

Men who have sex with men (MSM) is a term used mostly in the United States to classify male persons who engage in sex with other males, regardless of whether they self-identify as gay, bisexual, or heterosexual. The term is intended to reference a particular category of people as a risk-group for HIV, and is considered a behavioural category

In a study conducted by Preeti Pathela and colleagues (reported in the Annals of Internal Medicine) nearly 4200 New York City men were interviewed by telephone and asked 130 questions about health-related matters. Embedded in the demographic questions midway through the survey was a question about the man’s sexual orientation. Later, at the end of the survey, each man was asked about the number of men and women with whom he’d had sex during the previous 12 months.

Of the men who labeled their sexual orientation and reported having sex in the past year:

  • 85.8% identified as straight and reported sex only with women
  • 3.3% identified as gay and reported sex only with men
  • 1.1% identified as bisexual and reported sex with men, women, or both.

But:

  • 8.9% identified as straight and reported sex only with men
  • 0.7% identified as straight and reported sex with women and men.

Combining the last two groups, nearly 10% of the men identified themselves as straight but had at least one male sexual partner in the previous 12 months. About 70% of these men were married. Nearly all reported having sex with only one partner in the past year.


This comment attached to the Wall Street Journal blog on Senator Craig's denial of being gay, makes the same point.

But let’s not have the discussion that America really needs to have: gay men don’t have sex in public bathrooms. They have their gay bars, clubs and websites for that. It’s the straight men traveling on “business” that play footsies in the public johns, who wouldn’t be caught dead in a gay bar or bookstore. Who’s have sex in a public restroom? Your “straight” husband is!!!! LOL I should know. I’ve had sex w/ many “straight” men who were cheating on their families, only to tell me after I took care of their needs…cheating me, their families and themselves. Wake up America. Stop shooting gay folks as scapegoats. It’s the straight men who don’t want to come out of the closet for fear of being labeled queens who are troublemakers.
http://www.williamcastillo.com

Comment by William Castillo - August 28, 2007 at 9:55 pm


However for truly anonymous sex Senator Craig might have considered sticking to the internet where you can have a relationship with a man and remain straight.

The Internet has created a space where people can experiment with their sexuality. Many heterosexual men, who have previously merely fantasized about it, take the plunge and have cyber sex with other men. These are some of the findings in Typing, Doing and Being-­A Study of Men Who Have Sex with Men and Sexuality on the Internet, a new dissertation from Malmö University College in Sweden. Michael W. Ross will defend the thesis on March 10, and the public defense will be the first ever at the Faculty of Health and Society as well as the first in the new research field of Health and Society.


Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, August 28, 2007

Foot Tapping

Well I guess I won't be tapping my foot while waiting for a bowel movement or while listening to my IPod in the mens room at the Minneapolis airport. I could get busted.


...According to the police report, Craig entered a bathroom stall next to the police investigator, placed his bag against the front of the door and tapped his foot in a gesture commonly used to try to pick up men in public toilets.

"I recognized this as a signal used by persons wishing to engage in lewd conduct," Roll Call wrote, quoting the investigator in the police incident report.
Another Republican Senator for Family Values bites the dust.

Craig is in his third term and up for re-election next year. He is a former member of the Senate's Republican leadership and played an active role in the 1998 impeachment of former President Bill Clinton over the Monica Lewinsky sex scandal.

In a June 2006 Senate vote, Craig voted in favour of an amendment to the Constitution to define marriage in the United States as a union between one man and one woman. The amendment was defeated by one vote.

Craig is a strong advocate for the rights of gun owners. He has a close association with the National Rifle Association and at one time sat on its board of directors.


Expect social conservatives to come out and defend Craig, in a backhanded way as they did with Senator Foley; claiming this as another example of gay bashing (sic) by Democrats.
In October last year, a gay rights activist claimed in an Internet blog that Craig had had several gay relationships. Craig's office denied it, saying the allegations were "completely ridiculous" and had "no basis in fact."




Find blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tuesday, June 26, 2007

How Times Change

Huge papier mache statues of the great builders of Quebec were among the flags and marching bands in a boisterous parade Sunday that marked Quebec's Fete nationale provincial holiday. Former premier Rene Levesque was featured along with explorer Samuel de Champlain in the march,

Samuel de Champlain father of New France, founder of Quebec City, would be considered a pederast by today's Harpocrite government.

And while Conservatives and conservatives hearken back to the good old days of traditional values, this is not a 'traditional value' they support since they have lobbied for twenty years to change of age of consent from 14 to 16.


Champlain achieved at the beginning of the winter an important gesture:
on December 27, 1610, aged at least 30 years, he signed a marriage contract with a 12-year-old girl, Helene Boullé. Because of her youth, it is specified that the marriage was to be carried out only after two years had elapsed. The engagement took place two days later and, on December 30, the bridal blessing was given in the church of Saint-Germain-l'Auxerrois, in Paris. Promised a dowry (6 000ª), Champlain received 4.500ª the day before, which is an invaluable supplement for his company.


Of course this wasn't a sexual/love marriage but one for financial purposes. Merely a marriage of convenience. Altogether now let's repeat; Marriage is a sacred institution.

Luckily for Champlain his marriage would not be annulled under Bill C-22.

Bill C-22 was passed by the Justice Committee on Thursday, April 19th, 2007 with one amendment. The government’s original Bill, which raises the age of sexual consent from 14 to16, would have allowed an exemption to the new law if the couple involved in the existing relationship were married, or in a common-law relationship or were in a relationship which had produced or where they were expecting a child. The Bill, as amended by the Committee, proposes to allow relationships between 15 year olds and adults who are more than five years older, to continue to be legal, as long as the people involved are married.

ind blog posts, photos, events and more off-site about:
, , , , , , ,