conuly

I'm going to have to go out and read it, even though I don't want to, just to be able to talk about it more effectively.

I have no idea what the book says, although I've seen some debunkings of *specific* claims found in the book - flawed or misunderstood or misrepresented studies, studies where the conclusion drawn in the book isn't the obvious one, studies where the conclusion drawn isn't nearly as cut-and-dried as the author claims. Assuming that what I've seen is accurate, I already don't want to go near it. What's the point? If this study and that study and the other study have been shown to be false, what are the odds that the rest of the book was written with any form of accuracy or even integrity? But I don't know.

What I do know is that some people who have read the book are really annoying me. They talk about not liking the school system because of its "one size fits all" approach which "hurts boys". (Funny, boys grow up to run the world, they can't be hurting all that much.) Which may be true - except they then advocate a two size fits all approach and, worse, attempt to discover "size" on the basis of genitals.

Now, it may be that most boys are better in this environment, and most girls are better in that environment - fine. And it may be that there are no children whatsoever that learn better in a third or a fourth or a fifth environment - okay. But even if 99% of boys and 99% of girls are just like everybody else of their gender (which I'm not so sure of), the remaining 1% of children is a significant portion of the population that's going to be doubly shortchanged - first by being put in a classroom that's designed (according to this concept) to be totally opposite from how they learn best, and second by being told by implication that they're "wrong" to not learn like the other little girls/boys! This approach wouldn't even work for clothes, why does anybody expect it to work for brains?

Dividing classrooms by learning style? Putting each child with the teacher and method that suits them best? Great, I'm all for that! It makes a lot of sense to me!

But why not do it in the logical, straightforward way - test children, observe them, evaluate them - and then decide where they go based on what each individual child shows you is the best method for them, rather than by where the bulk (theoretically) of their gender is gonna end up? That's the right way to do this.

Doesn't make any sense to me.

( NOT SAFE FOR WORK... but still very cute )

I never thought balloon condom animal porn would be so cute! Of course, I suppose that means that when you have safe sex you're using their cute little disembowelled bodies to do so....

She also dealt with sexual cleanliness, whatever that means.

The person who posted that link thinks Purity Balls are sweet. I took it without credit, because I happen to think they're just a little creepy. The boy's version is *less* creepy, but only because it has that lovely double standard going on. (Somebody asked where I saw this about a male version, and I'm declining to answer her too.)

Now, I'm not saying that it's wrong to talk to your kid about sex, and about your morals in that regard. In fact, I think that's a wonderful thing and that it's never too early to start this sort of discussion (though the age of four, as the first article includes, might be a little young to understand the idea of sexual purity. Sheesh).

I just think that these events are wrapped up in a host of concepts I do *not* agree with, in ways that are hard to express, and that they're just a little creepy and off-putting.