Did one culture, shown in the film, have a better way of parenting than the others?
In my opinion no one culture really stood out as supreme each family was given the tools to raise a child in their society. It's hard to say that the modern style was better than the rural or vice-versa because from what was shown all the babies basically reached the same goal. They all, by the end of the movie, had learned to crawl around and explore their world. So not one style allowed the babies to accomplish something that others would not.
However there were some advantages the style used by the Japanese and American parents. Their babies were taken to a play group with other babies and learned to play and interact with others, making them more social. This is something that didn't happen as much in Namibia and hardly at all in Mongolia. The baby in Japan spent much more time with other babies and would probably gain more social skills that would help her later in life.
What looked universal - common to all humans - from the film - at least as edited? Why is this universality significant?
What looked universal to all the parenting styles was the fact that all the parents got help, at least somewhat. In both Japan and San Fransisco the babies went to play groups but also spent time with grandparents, who helped the parents raise the babies. Additionally in San Fransisco the Mother was seen reading a book about being a good parent and raising the kid well. In Nambia the mother got assistance from not only the other mother but from the other children, the baby was often seen around other kids who help raise him and make him who he is. This is important to note and to realize because from it we can learn that raising baby is done by a group of people not just the mom and dad or just the mom. It further proves the idea that it takes a village to raise a child not just the parents.
Another commonality between the babies was that for the most part they were raised by their mothers more than anyone else. The baby in Japan spent most of her time with her mother, the mom was the one that took her to all of her play groups and was seen in nearly every scene with her, much more than the father. In Namibia there was no father what so ever there was the mother, another woman and the brothers. The mother was again seen as the most important person in the baby's life. In Mongolia we saw a father but he was rarely taking care of the baby, instead he was just riding his motorcycle and working outside, the mother was much more involved with the baby. Although the father was more involved in San Fransisco the baby still spent most of her time with her mother. She was her main caregiver and seemed closer to the mother.
At the same time there were also differences between the parenting styles. Especially between the families who lived in cities and the families who lived secluded. One difference I realized was between Namibia and San Fransisco, at one point in Namibia one child was misbehaving so the mother gave him light hits and slaps to get him to stop, however when the American baby hit her mother the mom took out a book entitled "no hitting." Such differences show the variance in parenting styles, the liberal modern parents (US) took the more 21st century approach whereas the traditional parent (Namibia) took the more up front and older style. This is just one of the other differences seen between the different groups of parents.
1What did the performance suggest might be the underlying dynamics that lead to domestic violence? What are some dynamics that might support/allow domestic violence, as shown in the performance?
I felt that the performance as a whole suggested that the fundamental principles that push a relationship to become more and more abusive are control and silence/not doing anything. It seems like control gets the figurative ball rolling that makes the relationship abusive and silence from others allows the ball to pick up speed. I felt that the boyfriend got progressively more and more abusive and what allowed him to continue was the fact that no one stopped him, he was able to verbally abuse his girlfriend and no one told him not too. By the time someone did stand up and tell Janet they were worried it had already gotten to the point where the boyfriend had people spying on her.
The dynamics that allow and permit a relationship to be abusive are similar to those that start it in the first place. I think that what makes domestic violence possible in these relationships is inequality. There was a lack of balance in power between the two participants of the relationship, the boyfriend had much more control and much more say than the girlfriend and I believe that as he got used to the control he felt like he needed more, so he took more and that is what supported his ability to control and treat Janet the way he did.
3Address another aspect of the performance and/or discussion that you'd like to explore or analyze.
One aspect of relationships that i think was widely overlooked was the fact that relationships overlap. All the different characters that centered around the same girl showed a different view of the situation and they all wanted different things. They had different stakes in their relationship with Janet and when they clashed they ended up fighting. For example the father wanted to be trusted by his daughter, he wanted her to confide in him but in doing so she would have to loosen her relationship with the abusive boyfriend, and it ended up with the father being pushed away further from his daughter. The play showed that in overlapping relationships there is only one that emerges with priority, not all the relationships are given the same worth.
This was also seen between Janet and the friend who wanted to talk to her in the library, he wanted to help her and use his relationship as a friend to reach his goal, which was to get her out of the abusive relationship but his want overlapped into the relationship between the abusive boyfriend and Janet and as a result two had to hide in a secret part of the library just to talk. One relationship clashed with another relationship, there were different needs/stakes by the participants and as a result either there was a fight or things had to be done in secret as opposed to in the open.
This idea is in some ways seen in all relationships even those that are not abusive, we all have different people in our lives, family, friends, associates and even in those groups there are sub sections (i.e. different groups of friends that are opposite from one another.) These different groups are all trying to pull us in their direction, trying to get us to satisfy their need for company or affirmation etc. So if you overlook the fact that the situation on the surface about an abusive relationship you can see that each one of the characters had different interests and concerns in their relationship with Janet. The play showed this varying need almost a competition between the characters that is almost universal.
4. Was this experience of watching the performance and discussing it afterwards valuable enough to be repeated next year? Why or why not?
I enjoyed watching the play and I'm glad i did it but I felt like the discussion was more thought provoking and more interesting. Overall i think it was good have performed because it helped apply the topics of the discussion like "should the kid have lost his scholarship just because he watched the video?" I did overall like the performance because it showed a lot about the characteristics of abusive relationships but it was in the beginning a little hard to follow. But overlooking that the plat was defiantly worth doing. Once i realized that were different characters each with a different perspective I was able to understand how the play was set up so the audience would be able to identify with a character and thus have a better understanding of the topic. Because of that i think the play and discussion were both beneficial and good ideas.
in the lecture/interview with Margaret she explained that her main goal was to raise simply good, hard working, honest, happy people. Another two points were that yelling doesn't seem to be an effective style of parenting and that parenting means sacrificing no matter what.
In the lecture with Marks we talked more about how kids are raised based on culture and the styles that emphasize getting the kid active or giving them interests they can follow later in life; rather than discipline. He also explained that there seems to be a best solution/parenting style for each situation, with that in mind there are then pros and cons for each style, whether it be concerted cultivation or accomplishment of natural growth.
The parent I interviewed described her parenting style as disciplined yet free. She wants her kids to know that she wanted them to be independent and have control of their own lives but just not be stupid. She also explained that she believes a cornerstone of good parenting is trust. Trust between the parent and child is important at every stage from the time they are young to the time they are teens.
The prevailing theme in all three of these lectures/interviews is giving the child choice but limited choice. In the Margaret interview she said she didn't want to yell at her kids and tell what they should be doing all the time but at the same time wanted them to make the right decisions, wanted them to be on the right path. In the marks interview we talked about how in concerted cultivation the child has the choice of what he wants to do but it not simply watching t.v. it's learning an instrument. and in my interview the parent talked about her emphasis on setting up only a few rules like for safety or education but the rest was a choice by the child.
Overall i think this is a good way to parent giving them certain rules as a way to make sure they will reach certain goals. I think it helps the child become more well rounded academically, socially, and in some cases athletically. That is why I like the concerted cultivation method a lot more than accomplishment of natural growth and I would probably raise my kids with that method over another. Additionally the more i think about it the more i see emphasis on concerted cultivation in our culture. There are so many programs set up inside and outside schools that are trying to get kids interested in things like piano or painting not just playing outside or playing video games. But concerted cultivation needs to be based on choice not force. I think it is better to have the kid pick his activity and try it for a while, if they don't like it they can move to something else. The kids are disciplined because they are controlled in to doing only certain things but they have choice because they control which activity they do. Control with choice.
Part 4:This mini parenting unit has brought up many interesting ideas about this incredibly universal topic. One major issue that i have realized about parenting is that quite often parents have conflicting interests, they want what's best for their kids but also want to be part of their lives. For instance, parents who ferberize their children often have a hard time doing so because they feel like their child is helpless. They want their children to grow up independent but also want to be "there" for their children. This is also seen in attachment parenting, the parent wants to close to their child but they can't be close forever so when it's time to let go it's harder. and in that respect it hurts the child. These examples of the constant conflicting interests in parenting show how and why it is such a complex issue. Understanding this aspect of parenting has helped me understand the way i was parented and adjust my understanding of all these parenting styles.
Another insight I gained in the parenting mini-unit that adjusted my understanding of the topic of parenting is the effect siblings has on the way children are parented. I think that having a sibling changes first off the amount of time a parent thinks they need to spend with the child. A single child will be seen by the parent as their one chance and will be a much more attentive parent who pushes the child much more, that is why i think there is more concerted cultivation in single child homes rather than multiple child homes. Additionally parents who have more than one child probably won't put much pressure on their children maybe because then there is more than one immunity project. Moreover having siblings also helps develop social skills and manners/social scripts at a much earlier age. This insight on the advantages of siblings and the role of siblings has, like the other insights gained in the parenting mini-unit changed my understanding of why my parents might have had two children and how my life would have been different without a sibling. It has also made me think about the number of kids i might want and how i will change my parenting understanding.
Parenting is one of the most controversial topics I can think of. Every time there is a major problem with a teen someone always says "where were the parents." It happened with Columbine and it happens when a kid shoplifts. That's shows the importance of parenting, I think that parenting even at the youngest age can greatly effect the children mentally for years to come.
It's important to note, when talking about parenting and ways to raise children, that kids are modelers, they mirror what they see and hear from nearly everyone around them. So with that in mind we can reach the conclusion that to raise good kids they must be in a good environment. Their parents, extended family and community need to all be good role models. That is why I believe in the village idea of raising a child, while the parents might be the most important you cannot undervalue the importance of the everyone else around the child. They learn how to act and normal social scripts from everyone around them therefore its not just the parents its everyone around them. This idea that children model everything they see is backed up by the Albert Bandura Bobo doll experiment. In the psychological experiment adults beat up a doll with a hammer and this was shown to children, then the children where put near the doll and because of what the adults preformed the children displayed aggression towards the doll, thus mirroring what they saw the adults doing. Therefore children need as many good role models as they can get.
In my opinion the main principles or themes of parenting shift depending on the age of the child, for instance in most modern families when the child is a baby the relationship is Child-centered and there is relatively no mature humor is involved but once the child becomes a teenager and then an adult more humor is involved and less obedience and subornation. This is good because there are certain things a child must learn when they are young, young children are very egocentric and so parenting at that age is shifted to discipline and learning.
I do not however believe that parenting is something nature or innate it is a learned skills and something that is shaped by the way you were parented. As an example a man who had a distant relationship with his father probably will make a point to be close with his son. My mother told me that she did read a few parenting books before i was born but said that she didn't think it helped much, so i doubt i will ever end up reading a pile of books on how to raise kids. To reiterate i do not think parenting is innate or something that you can just pick up from a book, i think it shaped by ones experiences and ones own experiences.
Part 2 I read the ferberizing link and I have mixed feelings. I am an advocate for parenting that teaches the child independence and that is one of the goals of the Ferber method so in that respect I think it is a good think. When a child is codled for his or her entire life they don't know how to live independently and when they leave home for college or what have you they are lost. At the same time it seems kind of cruel, I understand that the baby isn't just left all night but its still seems a little messed up. The baby is helpless and the parent essentially leaves them even if it is only for a few minutes. So I understand why some parents might not want to ferberize their children.
The attachment parenting text was interesting. Some of it seemed like it was saying the same basic thing again and again. A lot of the seven tools were about the baby feeling close and a close/secure relationship between mother and baby. It all seems kind of modern and "new mother" but too much. I got the impression that if your baby doesn't constantly need you and cal for you then you must be doing it wrong, which obviously is not true. I agree with number three, I think it basic common sense that a baby develops a familiarity with those they spend most time with. Maybe that is why so many new mothers try to always be near their children. The one i don't agree with as much is number 6 and all the others that say don't listen to any system that tries to decrease your attachment with the baby. While I agree that a mother should have a strong connection with their baby that should eventually decrease. The mother should not be too close because eventually the child will grow up and needs to be independent and it never too early to start systems that promote independence. That is why i am a proponent of systems that help maintain a relationship between mother and child but also promote a sort of growing distance.
I also read the "when parenting theories backfire" article which was more about discipline than anything else. I believe theories like this go by a case to case basis and we can see it in this article. Whether or not this system in particular works seems to be based on the child's intelligence. I do not think the system would have back fired if the kids, specifically Abigale didn't realize they could initiate and give the parents a choice as a opposed to the parents giving the kids the options. As soon as the kids realized that they could control the situation the systems purpose was defeated. It was based on choice but that the parents would be the ones who gave the choice. Essentially it is discipline with some freedom. But the entire discipline aspect went out the door when the kids realized they could give choices.
Do you think it is generally better or worse for society to have both parents working?
Would you rather have both your parents in your family working or just one?
Where do you think the main differences are? what are the main changes in the lives of children who have dual working parents compared to single working families?
Do you think there are differences in the benefits/disadvantages between sons and daughters of dual working families?
Do you see this a big step towards gender equality?
part 2 Interview 1: Do you think it is better for society in general to have both parents working? Yes I think for the progression of an equal and more progressive society having a dual working family is essential. When your talking about society as a whole there is really no reason not to. However that is just society I understand why some people might not want to work because of they don't want to leave their children. There's a difference between society and family. What would want both your parents to work or just one? I think it depends on the age of the child. When he or she is young they would want both of their parents or a least one home. But as they got older especially in the teenage years it wouldn't mean as much. Looking back I wouldn't want to be the reason my mother or father didn't work so i would rather both work. What are the main differences of children with single and dual working parents? Independence is a big one, I would expect children of dual working parents to be more able to fend for themselves when compared to their single wage counterparts. Not to say that kids from single wage families can't be independent but its almost compulsory for kids of dual wage families to be independent. Is there a difference between the benefits and disadvantages between sons and daughters when both parents work? I think generally it is the same on both ends but I would expect it to have a more profound effect on the daughter rather than the son, I except the daughter to look up to the mother more than the son looking up to the mother, especially if the daughter understands that the mother wasn't sure what she should do. The son generally looks up to the father and the daughter looks up to the mother so a lot of what they see as either a benefit or not comes from the gender. This topic is much more meaningful to the daughter than the son. The whole changing of gender roles is a thing that effects the daughter much more than it would the son, so that is one benefit that is seen more in daughters than sons. Is this gender equality? It is a step toward gender equality because it changes the former norm that the mother stays home while the father works, it changes the perception of gender roles and that is obviously a step toward the direction of gender equality. While it is gender equality that's not the only factor people think about when deciding whether or not to work or stay home, its also about how they want to raise their kids. Do they want to do it or do they want to pay someone to do it? Its important to note that there are other factors to think about not just changing gender roles.
interview 2: Is it better or worse for society to have more families of dual working parents? He said that he didn't think it really made that much of a difference. He didn't see that much of a big change whether or not more parents work. He added that for sure its not worse and its good that it changes an old unequal norm. Upon thinking some more he said its better for the family financially. By having two families working there is obviously more income and a higher standard of living, so in that respect it's better. Are there many differences between children who have single and double working parents? if so what are they? His response was that he didn't expect there to be "universal" differences seen every child. But he would expect kids who have two working parents to have more separation anxiety when they were younger but that would eventually wear off and they would become more independent. One interesting thing he said was that its possible that the kids who have dual working parents would be less motivated to finish their homework every night or might become procrastinators because they wouldn't have anyone pushing them to do their work. But he was clear that it was only speculation and not necessarily a general truth. Do sons view dual working families differently than daughters? He said they probably would not be that different, both would come from the same family and thus would have very similar lives. He said that because of this if say the son becomes more independent the daughter would be to, and vice-versa. However he also said that the daughter would gain a deeper appreciation for the mother once she got older. When the children are little they would realize the choice the mother had to make, to them it is just "dad works and mom works" it isn't until they get older that specifically the daughter might change their perspective interview 3: As a mother was it hard for you to go to work after you had kids? Her response was that at first she wasn't sure whether or not she would go directly back, or go back at all. But ended up going back after a while. She said that of course part of her didn't want to go back and wanted to stay home but she also didn't want to be a stay at home mother. Do you think it was better that you work? yes, she doesn't regret it. She explained that she felt she had spent a good about of time with her kids even though she worked and that it was never really that much of a problem. She wanted her kids to be able to live on their own and not have to babied when they got older so she worked instead of staying home. Is the growing trend of mothers and fathers working a big step for gender equality? her response was that it is, but that wasn't a big part of her life or decision. She brought up the fact that both of her parents worked so it wasn't really anything new, its good that this is a growing trend but and it was inevitable. Do you think there are any repercussions to children who come from dual waged households? Again she brought up the point that her parents both worked and she turned out fine so the idea that it is going to have any lasting problems is ridiculous. She said that the only real difference between the two groups would be some slight separation anxiety in the first few years but that would subside and its better to happen then than latter like in college. Do you think if you didn't live in a city you would still work? her simple response was yes, she brought up the point that she likes working and the gender role thing was very minor. She also emphasized the point that she wanted her kids to be proud of her and she couldn't do that sitting at home. The Interview was ended with her saying that her going to work benefited both her and her kids.
part 3: Through my interviews I have reached the conclusion that in general most people think that having both parents work benefits the family. I also found that one of the things everyone agreed on was that it gives the child more independence and doesn't baby them which is good. One response that I got that was interesting was that all of the effects like morals and "looking up to" doesn't come until the child is older, if then. When the child is young it doesn't know whether or not someone should be working, it was interesting to think about the fact that the recognition doesn't come for years if does at all. This also plays into the relationship with family aspect of my question. The recognition or idolization that might come up can show a lot about how these familial relationships work. But what was really interesting was what was said in interview 2 that having two working parents can mean that there is no one to force the kid to do work and thus he/she won't do it. This is an interesting perspective on a possible effect dual working parents can have on work ethic. Also for the gender role aspect of the questions showed that a lot of the impact in changed gender roles are seen in daughters not son's. The responses showed that this is a big changer in the perceptions of gender roles and ideology specifically in daughters.
part 4: question/statement for survey
Having both the Mother and Father working at the same time will only BENEFIT the family, children in particular: scale of 1-5 agree to don't agree.
My current research question is basically on the normal family situation. Primarily on the effect households where both parents work has on the children. I don't have one final big question instead i have a group of about 3 questions that all fall under the same basic idea:
QUESTION: How does a household where both parents are working effect the mentality of the child in both childhood and teenage/young adulthood? OR Is a household where one or both parents work better or worse for child involved, will it affect the future aspirations and occupations the children involved? Does it help promote gender equality both now and in the next generation?
comments for other peoples questions
ALICIA Hi Alicia,
first off i think this a really interesting question that has a different perspective I hadn't thought of before. I like that it deals with two types of relationships, one that deals oneself and another that deals with love relationships. If you want to make it even more interesting and specific you could add another part that discusses why we may or may not need to accept ourselves. Do we all start out not accepting ourselves, Do we all have these insecurities? It might also be interesting to think about what happens in relationships where both participants accept themselves or a relationship where the participants do not. Do relationships where the is no acceptance fail more often? these are just some questions to think about, overall it think your question is pretty good and interesting.
ARDEN Arden to begin with I like your topic because friendship is something nearly all of us experience and what makes a good friend is something we can all relate to. Just something to think about would be, does what you want out of a friend vary by situation and context?
also Are there certain commonalities in friendship we all look for, what are the universal necessities we have to have in a friend? this is very similar to your original question but it introduces the idea that what makes a friend is a global phenomenon/ideology.
PART 3: REVISED QUESTION how does a household in which both parents work effect the child, either though aspirations, values, morals, relationship with family and perceptions of gender roles?
1. "Effects of Dual Working Parents." Studyworld. N.p., n.d. Web. 13 May 2010. . http://www.studyworld.com/newsite/ReportEssay/SocialIssues/Political%5CEffects_of_Dual_Working_Parents-13.htm
This article, like the others discusses why more families are becoming dual-waged, it builds on the idea that gender roles are no longer what they used to be and as a result more mothers are going to work. Another point that is brought up is that children obtain their values morals and aspirations from their parents so when the parents go to work no matter their gender new norms are being instilled into the children thus less gender inequality. The article further discusses that while working mothers may help set a higher standard and offer a role model for daughters it can put a strain on the relationship of the father and son. A working mother may make the father look like a bad provider and thus the son may not look up to him. The article also touches on the fact that mothers who are happy and feel a sense of accomplishment tend to be warmer and in some ways are better mothers. This article would be best used for that argument that dual working parents help make the next generation more equal and give children more initiative to succeed. Additionally it can be used when discussing the fact that there are multiple options that can be used to supplement direct, constant care of a child by the mother. There are more and more options for parents these days and just because the parent is home more often doesn't mean they will be in constant direct contact with the child.
This website is data on the number of family and non family homes in the US categorized by type of family or non family. For one it shows that the overwhelming majority of households in the US are families, therefore most of the households in the United States have needs/requirements other than simply going to work and coming back. Families have kids and kids need to be taken care of. Therefore this article would be best to use if i was discussing the type of people who work today and how as parent they have more responsibility and how going to work or staying home is no longer just black and white, there are some gray areas.
3.Wladis Hoffman, Lois. "The Effects of the Mother's Employment on the Family and the Child." University of Wisconsin, 1998. Web. 13 May 2010. . http://parenthood.library.wisc.edu/Hoffman/Hoffman.html This essay is good because it covers a more than one aspect of this topic. For one it brings to light the change in employment patterns in the past few decades specifically the changes with mothers in the labor force. It also shows the differences in the child's age compared to the number of mothers working. The study also explains that for daughters whose mother was employed scored higher on tests, was more socially independent, and were more likely to be occupationally successful themselves. Additionally it was reported that children of working mothers are less devoted to gender stereotypes/roles. This study will be very useful when I talk about the effect working families has on the children. It will be great to use this as evidence that working mothers not only help their children develop confidence or help them succeed but also reduce the inequality in gender roles. the study says: "Girls with employed mothers were more likely than girls whose mothers were full-time homemakers to indicate that women as well as men could do the activities that are usually associated with men" therefore this will be very good when i talk about all the positives that come when both parents are working.
4. "Globalization: Children and Working Parents Pay Too High a Price." Harvard school of public health press releases (2006): n. pag. Web. 13 May 2010. . http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2006-releases/press02272006.html This article is from the Harvard School of Public Health, it discusses the growing necessity around the world for parents to work and leave kids at work or school in order to provide financially. The article discusses some of the similarities seen across the world as well as the fact that not assisting working families helps to increase gender role stereotypes and inequalities. The study the article is based on shows that much to often parents are forced to make hard decisions, do they take care of their kids or make a living? This article can be used if i am making the argument that parents have just as much right to work as non parents and yet it is so much harder for parents to maintain a job. It would also be very helpful if i talk about how the child needs a parent in the short run but it will help in the long run, not only financially but also to create a more gender or economically equal workplace.
introverted:60.61% extroverted:39.39% sensing:62.5% Intutitive:37.5% Thinking:52.94% feeling:47.06 Judging:71.88% perceiving:28.13% ISTJ - "Trustee". Decisiveness in practical affairs. Guardian of time- honored institutions. Dependable. 11.6% of total population part 2: Upon hearing my test results i can't say I'm surprised. I am generally more introverted, and i do tend to think logically acting on thought not impulse. Also in class when i was used as an example most people guessed letters/results fairly correctly. So with that said i think the results are fairly accurate. Obviously there are some flaws with the way the testing is done but none that would make the results completely false, one such flaw would be the fact that it is entirely based on one own perception of themselves may change the answers. People look at themselves in a different light than friends look at you. For the person taking the test they might look at the questions a little more subjectively and be more generous when evaluating themselves. Therefore the results may not be completely accurate but for the most part the Myers-Briggs test is generally correct. Additionally i think the test is for the most part accurate because in class i evaluated a friend, i looked at each section and tried to think about what fits best. Afterward i asked her what her real results were and i was 100% right so the test obviously isn't just guessing, there is some thinking and scientific evaluation that goes into categorizing people.
However i think a lot of what the test attempts to evaluate is situation based. For example in a group of friends one might be louder, more outgoing, talkative, and therefore more extroverted but the same person could be quiet or shy in a group of people he or she doesn't know and therefore introverted. It's hard to grasp a personality profile that perfectly matches a person in every situation all the time because we are not always the same person.
On the debate of whether we should follow the theory of appreciate difference or maximize compatibility i would pick maximize compatibility. I don't believe that opposites will attract. It really just doesn't make sense to me and I have even recently heard that there have been studies proving that similarity is a big part of attractiveness. Would a far right wing Republican marry a left wing liberal? They would just fight all the time maybe it's the sensing and judging from my test but it really doesn't seem logical.
part 2: Overall i enjoyed taking the survey, there were some really good questions in each section and just sitting there for a 15 minutes taking it got me thinking about my family and friends a lot more then i thought it would. A lot of the questions in the friends category not only got me thinking about whether or not its true in my life but also got me to think about other people i know. I began to think of many of the people in my class or grade and thought how they might respond to a question like "You do stupid things and/or things you don't particularly enjoy to fit in" By thinking about what i expect to be the truth i developed what seems to be almost universal truths about how friendships work.
The questions that made me stop and think the most were the ones that dealt with how i think i will live or what my life will be like in the future. These questions forced me to think about the composite of my relationships, in other words i had to not just think about how i act and what my relationships are like in general but also i was forced to ask myself if i think i will always be that way. Is the way we act universal and the same for everyone or do and can we change how we interact and do we try to adjust peoples perception of ourselves? to i answer this question I say that yes people can change slightly but on the whole major relationship and action changes only happen when one switches age groups. To explain, yes while relationships change in general teenagers act the same and have the same relationships until they move to onto adulthood.
Part 3: One of the comparisons that i found particularly interesting was that the overwhelming plurality of students put 4 (yes usually, a lot) when asked if boys should be the ones who take the initiative in relationships but when asked if they are frustrated with gender double standards 73.1% of responses were at a 3 or higher. So it seems that people do not like the double standards on gender in our culture but at the same time don't care enough to ask for change. The one thing that surprised me was that only one person said they are not at all tired of the people in the school. If everyone really is so sick of the people in school they put on the good show. It's kind of amazing nearly all the people in the school are tired of each other but still hide it to be polite or liked. This response shows the lengths people will go to not to show others how they really feel. Overall i think i had the same responses for most questions as everyone else. However when there were most of them probably took place in the "self, politics, etc." section. These differences can probably be attributed to the fact that most of these questions are dependent on personal experience. A lot of the questions had to do with ones own life and Questions like "I'll be a good parent" and "this culture sees me as a success" forced me to think about my perspective of my life and that might be why (for me at least) some of these questions were different.
part 4: When looking at the survey from the department of health i noticed some similarities and differences. One of the differences was that in the department of health survey it was reported that only 8% of sexually active teens use birth control pills. This is different from our results in the question "do you use condoms or other safe sex technology, if we ignore the 37.3% that said N/A the next highest was yes, usually with 29.4%. So by in our survey more people use safe sex than the average city teen. The department of health also reported that almost 50% of city public high school students are sexually active, our survey showed that 32.7% are sexually active. (the 32.7% comes from the number 4, "yes usually, a lot".) So again our results are different from that of the health department. I would be more inclined to look at the results from the health department, not because our results are incorrect but because the health department's research seems to be taken from a much wider scope. I wouldn't generalize our results to the rest of the city so for that reason i think the health departments results are more reliable when looking at the majority of teens.
When i looked at the second survey from the CDC the one thing that stood out the most was the complete mismatch between their survey and ours when looking at drinking. Our survey reported that 40.4% of students have been drunk but the other survey reported that 75% of students having been drunk. obviously a giant gap but that could be attributed to the fact that our survey was not mandatory, and that only a small number of students took the survey. One similarity i noticed between these two survey's was that in the CDC survey 15.8% of students reported doing things to lose or keep from gaining weight, this is similar to our survey where when asked the question "I've experienced an eating disorder" only 9.8% said yes, quite a lot. So here the is a common ground, most students apparently do not have eating disorders.
The differences and shifts between the survey's show that its hard to get an accurate view on what is true about relationships and teenage life. If the process of comparing the results has proven anything it's that one should never generalize what may be true in one survey as true all people. There are too many extenuating circumstances either with the reliability of the responses to the questions or whether or not the results can be assumed to be universally true.
One aspect of human relations that I would like to start thinking about is friends. where does this need or want to have friends come from? The obvious answer is that we need people to talk to, to be with, to experience life with but can't we get all of them from family members. they experience the basically the same lives we do some of them are our own age. our family in a lot of ways is a replicate of ourselves. so why then do we look for other relationships. I think it is really this underlining need to have freedom and really to feel in control. We develop a sort of resentment (especially around adolescence) towards our family because we feel trapped and stuck. not that we can't move but we don't like the idea that we are didn't chose them. We were put into our families and didn't have control. the opportunity for control is one of the main reasons we put such emphasis on friend relationships.
There's a lot to this idea that much of what we do comes from a deep need to feel free. I guess some of it is related to a want to be a rebel but i do see a large part of what the young population does be related to rejection. For example the majority of young people tend to go out at night, but there is nothing really necessary for the progression of society going on at night. So these relationships are based on trying to reward oneself with control. One possible motivation for our actions and relationships is perceived control.
Much of the want for friendship also stems from the crave for affirmation. People need affirmation, they need others to look at them and tell them that they approve. We want to know that we are doing a good job at being human and normal and we all on some level want to be noticed. Maybe friends are simply people we can come back to for affirmation, and approval. No one really wants to be an outcast no one wants to be weird, what we do want is to have approval and affirmation so we create relationships that help fulfill that need.
To continue of friendship i think in nearly every group of friends, there is a leader and a follower. One person is almost in control of the rest of the group. this leader is in nearly every respect implicitly followed by the other members. I can't definitively say why some people become the leader and others become the followers but this leader has complete control. But can this structure of one dominating the other really be considered friendship, its just one person (the follower) trying to get affirmation or a leg up by being seen with a leader, and the leader is just letting the follower do it. This is somewhat similar to how our society works. some people initiate, take action and get theirs while others follow what the leaders set, either because they don't know better or because they don't know how not be a follower.
The leader follower situation exposes the power situation in nearly all relationships. I think in nearly all relationships on any level, through country relationships throughout the world, through friendships, and even in marriages and sexual relationships. true equality seems rare in now, someone or some group has final say and controls the power.
It's almost as if an unbalance of power is necessary in our definition of relationships. The standard situation of Who holds the power seems to constant for a time then changes. For example 50 or 60 years it was standard that in a marriage the husband held the power but that seems to be changing. Who has the power may shift but the power itself is always present.
Another possible theory on why we want friends and look for relationships is because we find strength in numbers and feel safer when we are not alone. I'm not saying this is the only reason we look for connections but isn't it partly that these connections show us that we not outcasts. Is it surprising some sort of universal anxiety?
On nations and cultures, a lot of what decides how a nation will be built, or how a culture will be structured depends on the context and events that took place before hand. In other words what decides the cornerstones of a culture or a nation is what lead to the forming of that nation. As an example America was created after the citizens were oppressed by the British, they were not given a fair say in the British government and as a result they founded a government where everyone has say in their government. Basically how we form a culture is based on what we've learned shouldn't happen. This shows a major aspect of how we chose to live, we learn from our mistakes but we don't plan for the future, that is why so many cultures and relationships fail. the basis's of the cultures become based on what just happened but the influences, and events in the world constantly change. Relationships fail because they are predicated on the fact that things will remain constant but that isn't true.
Parents and teachers attempt to convince students that going to school is one of the most important things in their life, that without a traditional education they will be left with nothing and will go nowhere. Some theorist’s argue that school prepares you for life and we must focus on how to improve people’s preparation for the rest of their lives but does it even do that? The one thing traditional schooling does very well is dominate. Teachers dominate students, administrators dominate teachers and even politicians dominate administrators. Education claims to help one get a better life by making a person more conscious or intelligent but what it’s really good at is training people to accept control. There are two main types of educating: traditional and progressive. One is based on standardization and teacher dominating the ideas and knowledge of students and the other is student centered, developing a deeper level of understanding and insight into their own lives.
School has dominated us into where saying the right thing at the right time is all that matters, no individuality nor creativity is necessary. If you can recall a date, event in history or formula you get an “A” but that doesn’t mean you’re smart. School has turned us into sheep saying what someone else wants but not what we think. It in a lot of ways defeats individualism and personal interest. School numbs children into conformed boxes, in these boxes students are told they are learning but instead are memorizing things that they will either soon forget or never need.
Argument one
A prominent social theorist, Ted Sizer, has developed a new, more progressive style of learning, not based on testing and reciting facts but on gaining a deeper level of understanding of a topic. It is based on understanding why this topic matters, what it has to do with you and what can you take from it: “Students use their minds. Schools are to provoke young people to grow up intellectually, to think hard and resourcefully and imaginatively about important things.” Sizer is saying that school should not be about absorbing facts but about real, intricate understanding and comprehension. Students need almost more than anything else to be taught to think; they should be taught to examine their lives, experiences and the relationship to world events.
Sizer’s idea of deep comprehension relies heavily on individualism, something that is nearly impossible to do in a widespread standardized school system. One of the important parts needed to make a good school is student motivation. Where is the motivation in a school where students see no relevance between what they are learning and their lives?The students experience nothing personal and develop no interest, therefore no true learning is taking place and no intelligence or growth develops. And more importantly, the student doesn’t leave with a plan to continue personal growth. In the Sizer method the ability to develop an understanding is a transferable skill that can be replicated throughout life, something that doesn’t regularly take place in traditional schools.
The book How Children Fail by John Holt brings up some interesting points about modern schooling. The idea that there can only be one interpretation and only one answer creates a school based on fear. It instills a fear of failing in the students. Students are pushed to new heights just to get the right answer, because that is all they see when they add success and school; there is no critical thinking or examination. “Schools give every encouragement to producers, the kid whose idea is to get “right answers” by any and all means. In a system that runs on “right answers” they can hardly help it. And these schools are often very discouraging places for thinkers.” (Holt, 48.) Holt suggests that educational institutions commend students who find the right answer for being good re-hashers of information and condemn students who use creative, practical thinking. What kind of school system discourages thinking?
Holt also discusses the classroom participation forced upon the students by their well-intentioned teachers. He writes: “Maybe I thought the students were in my class because they were eager to learn what I was trying to teach, but they knew better.They were in school, because they had to be, and in my class either because they had to be or because otherwise they would have had to been in another class, which might be even worse.” (Holt 46.) This school system has created an environment where the students have been turned off because no learning materializes. They follow a system where the teacher is sole leader and the students must take it. Thus they feel no connection to the topic and interest is eliminated. This is why students only remember and use a small percentage of what they learn in school. Obviously, the teacher is convinced that if they are interested in the topic and have domineering control over the class the students must also be interested and intrinsically motivated to focus but that is not necessarily true.To this end Holt says “… A child who is learning naturally, following his curiosity where it leads him, adding to his metal model of reality whatever he needs and can find a place for, and rejecting without fear or guilt what he does not need, is growing – in knowledge, in the love of learning and the ability to learn.” (Holt 220.)
Argument 2
Another researcher who has corroborated with the information and ideas presented by Holt and Sizer is Pablo Freire. Freire’s main argument against traditional schooling is that it has become simply a banking method; information is just deposited from the “enlightened” teacher to the “helpless” student, and the intelligence and worth of the student is decided on his or her ability to retrieve that information. Freire writes in the second chapter of his book, Pedagogy of the oppressed:
Education thus becomes an act of depositing, in which the students are the depositories and the teacher is the depositor. Instead of communicating, the teacher issues communiques and makes deposits which the students patiently receive, memorize, and repeat. This is the “banking” concept of education, in which the scope of action allowed to the students extends only as far as receiving, filing, and storing the deposits. They do, it is true, have the opportunity to become collectors or cataloguers of the things they store. But in the last analysis, it is the people themselves who are filed away through the lack of creativity, transformation, and knowledge in this (at best) misguided system. (Freire)
Freire discusses traditional, widespread education as simple domination, teacher above student. The teacher makes announcements and the students unwittingly deposit them into their minds because that is all they know, it’s all they have been told. This is so wrong because it breeds students who can only do one thing, collect. A student’s intelligence is based on their ability to collect, keep, and restate. The student becomes so enthralled in being the perfect depository that they fail to expand their creative mind. The mind that helps them solve problems, learn from experiences and understand, and adapt to their lives. Freire shows that when you center twelve years of your life on being depositories you’re left with next to nothing of substance.
Argument 3
These conclusions about school domination and the problems in the traditional school system are supported by physiologists who study multiple intelligences. One psychologist who defends multiple intelligences is Howard Gardner. Gardner defends the notion that there are multiple subject matters to be skilled in. Not only are there multiple types of intelligences they are completely independent from one another. Gardner once said: “If I know you're very good in music, I can predict with just about zero accuracy whether you're going to be good or bad in other things.” Schooling assumes that if you are a bad test taker, or you cannot repeat information you are not intelligent but that is completely false. A student can be have a hard time assimilating to school but that in no way predicts their true intelligence. Every type of intelligence is independent and exclusive and it is irresponsible for educators to ignore this concept.
Another physiologist who supports the theory that defining intelligence is more than just picking the right answer on a test is Robert Sternberg. Sternberg’s theory is that there are three main types of intelligence, analytical, creative, and practical. Sternberg once said: “The three parts of the theory are analytical ability, the ability to analyze things to judge, to criticize. Creative, the ability to create, to invent and discover and practical, the ability to apply and use what you know.” Sternberg says that intelligence cannot be defined simply as getting the single right answer to an irreverent question. Intelligence and success in school should include ones ability to form an opinion, artistry, and imagination and applied knowledge and know how. These theories support the conclusion that school domination would be lessened if not eliminated if the administrators and legislators taught to the strengths and interests of the students.
conclusion
In conclusion tradition schools are institutions where dominance is overly prevalent and real learning rarely takes place. Schools need to the concept that the skills of learning are transferable and once a child has been hooked on learning and the love of learning he will use those skills over and over rather than being dominated by the teacher or administrator.
Gatto against school summary- Gatto's against school article has a lot of points, one of the most interesting is that when we go to school for five days a week for nine months a year for 12 years but in so many cases don't receive an education, they don't learn anything. School is set up to put students into a submissive state that puts students under ranked from the teacher. School is supposed to prepare children for becoming adults so we need show them how to and that doesn't happen in schools. Gatto also talks about what school really accomplishes,the way we learn and are taught allows us to become obedient and indoctrinated. School also conforms students, it does a terrible job looking at the individual but a good job looking at the group. In a lot of ways we are reduced to numbers and dehumanized sorting, we are sorted and have no control schooling reduces us from individuals to a part in the social group. To much of schooling and grading brings down the lesser students and bring up the stronger so leaving no chance for improvement. Response: Gatto brings up some interesting points. I agree with Gatto when he said "We could encourage the best qualities of youthfulness - curiosity, adventure, resilience, the capacity for surprising insight - simply by being more flexible about time, texts, and tests, by introducing kids to truly competent adults, and by giving each student what autonomy he or she needs in order to take a risk every now and then." to me this just seems logical, all i hear is that school helps prepare you for life, it teachers you how to be a functioning adult and how to get a good job. Well if that's true shouldn't we treat students as adults. give them knowledge and tools to act independently, have more student accountability. I also find it interesting when he mentions all the famous people that we hold so highly but never did receive a proper education. we look up to them and want to be like them but at the same time go to school everyday even though they didn't. gatto six lessons summary- in this article Gatto discusses the six basic lessons/central themes that take place in our school system. these lessons happen everywhere in the country and have become the basis of our education:lesson one is school is a giant sorting machine, students are sorted and numbered. lesson one also talks about how sorting puts students in a place from which they cannot get out, sorting keeps kids in their place and prevents movement or advancement. lesson two says that school is completely teacher oriented and that students should understand that they are at the discretion of the teacher meaning that when the teacher switches topic the students should switch with ease. The third lesson is simply be obedient, as a student you have no real power so stop fighting the teacher as if you do have power. The fourth lesson is similar to lesson 3 it says that the teacher is one in control and the students should respect authority. Lesson five focuses on the grading system implemented by schools. In school everyone is being judged and a student is only as good as his teacher or transcript tells him. Lesson six says that school is a place where students can be constantly watched to make sure they don't learn anything that would tamper with the schools mission. He even writes "Children must be watched if you want to keep a society under control." response- I don't believe this is something Gatto believes or wants to to happen they are just trends he has noticed. It is scary to think about especially lesson six. the idea that school is just a place where students are monitored so they are kept in check is unsettling and sounds like something from "1984." I do not believe that this is all school is, some parts maybe but not the entire education system. I do agree with Gatto on the point that school is about being obedient and respecting authority, school is full of domination and the teacher is in control of the student. So on lessons two and three i agree with Gatto.
Freire: In his writing Freire brings up the point that no one is really learning, no one gets a relateable or true education, information is just pored into their heads and whether or not they can recite it shows their intelligence. Teachers give students information that they deem real knowledge and if they can hold that knowledge and retrieve it they are considered intelligent but in reality they are no better than they next guy. Freire constantly talks about the inequality our schools system creates, known as the banking system. This system relies on the teacher and the student being unequal. The teacher is higher and the student is their subordinate. The banking system attempts to dumb down the student, to push them away from thinking, individualism, education that affects their life and keep them ignorant, so they can be utilized. Our banking system of learning depends on the submissiveness of the individual and hope they will not ask questions and Freire hates this. Response: I have mixed feelings on Freire's idea, while even the most right-wing educator will agree that some of the things you learn in school seem useless and are just filler that doesn't mean that the 12 years of school are just depositing useless information. I have used a lot of what I learned in History and English in discussion and debate, not everything taught is pointless. I agree with Freire on the point that school requires you to be obedient to authority (but I do see that decreasing as you get to high school.) School asks that you be submissive and not resist and that in some ways prepares you for respecting authority later in life. I agree that being subordinate to every adult in the school seems kind of outdated but i don't completely see that as being every student being completely oppressed like Freire. Freire's argument seems somewhat radical but nevertheless is an valid view point.
Delpit: Summary: Delpit's idea's centers around how the school system we use is not universal, far from it. The way we teach children works for some of students but it fails nearly just as much. Delpit also focuses on what she calls the culture of power. The culture of power has five basic aspects, these parts help explain how our school system might let students from one culture will do well but another culture might not.
One is that students lack power. their teachers control them, their textbooks control what they see, the administrators control what textbooks they get. Delpit also shows that school prepares us for work, and our status in our jobs determines the power we hold, therefore lack of power in school correlates to lack of power in life. Two is that there are a set of codes and rules to follow in order to be accepted in school. these rules are set up to not match with every culture, in other words school attempts to conform students in to a specific ideal. Aspect three says that the best way to be successful in school is to be part of the culture or group that has the power. Those that have power set rules and codes that dictate how to be successful in school so those that are from power are used to the codes and those that are not must learn it all from the start as new. Aspect four is somewhat of an extension of "3" it explains how it is easier for information to be passed within a culture than between two. This explains that its easier for the students from power to learn when compared to students from other cultures. The final, aspect five explains that the members of the culture of power ignore or don't talk about the fact that they are in power, they refuse to acknowledge it because then they look like the bad guy. Response: Delpit's argument makes logical sense. It's obvious that a persons culture affects what they are interested in learning and how well they do in one subject and not all schools are exactly culturally neutral. The two aspects that seem the most logical to me are number three and four. If what is taught is based on the power culture the students from that culture will essentially be relearning the basics, being taught what they already know. Obviously this is unfair and creates an un-level playing field. schooling should be culturally neutral, giving each student equal opportunity to learn the topic. delpit interview with N. Stanley summary- Delpit's core mission in education is to give students the skills needed to succeed no matter what their culture or class. Delpit expresses her ideology that the most effective ways to teach students is through art. Creative learning, to her seems more universal in every culture than learning from a worksheet or lesson. delpit also expresses her belief that learning in context especially with language, can be much more beneficial than textbook learning. She continues to express that what makes the best teacher is someone who is genuine and truly want all the kids to succeed, its not enough to simply teach from a textbook. If the teacher is committed, the student will be committed. response I agree with most of the stuff Delpit says, in my experience applied learning where we are taught in terms of when it will be used is by far the best way to learn. There is a difference between hearing a topic and seeing it, in other words you can either be told how to speak a sentence in Spanish or you can see how it applies to normal conversation and for me at least the latter of the two is the most effective. To her point that some cultures learn differently i think is correct, there are 100's of different cultures in the word and its illogical to think they all look at a test or a topic in the same light. In addition to teach a student but have no care in whether or not they succeed just adds to their feeling that they don't need to be in school and there is no purpose in learning your topic.
Manley summary-The lecture from Manley covered a few different topics. It started off with the idea that teaching in general can be a very humanistic job. It allows people to become more connected and get to know each other. From there it branched off into what are the advantages and disadvantages of traditional and progressive learning. He talked about the idea that much of difference between progressive or tradition is predicated on whether or not the class is teacher or student centered. He also talked about his experience in a traditional school and how it lowered his self esteem which was interesting. We also able to discuss the argument that the best way to have a progressive school is in a small setting because its hard to facilitate individual education to a large group of kids with only a small amount of teachers. Response-This interview was helpful and interesting because it incorporated many different aspects, like personal experience, main ideas, and pro's and con's of teaching methods. It was interesting to think that having a more progressive class can be as easy as making it less teacher based or authoritative and more equal. It makes me wonder why it is not used that often, why are so many schools stuck with the banking model. It was also somewhat thought-provoking to think about how a lot of the debate on progressive vs. tradition boils down to in depth learning vs broad learning. Its a hard choice to pick which is the overall best choice, one gives you more insight, while the other prepares you better for life.
a. your personal contribution: in the movie i played the role of rebellious student. The character helped show a different type of student outlook towards school.Having different characters, with different ideas on school like the teacher who likes poetry, the gossipers who care about their social lives or the rebellious students show opinions on what school is for whether it be for learning, socializing, or killing time. Having a rebellious student helped focus on how unengaged and uninterested students are in what they are taught. In that respect the rebellious students of the class show that much of the problems in school lie in the topics and the lack of connection the students feel. b. your analysis of the message and tone of your section's film To me the message of our class film is that students do not care about what school is offering and schools fail to accomplish their goal of education students and creating intelligent citizens. The fact that at the end of the film the students just started talking again as if nothing happened shows that overall students don't care about what school is set up to do, and the failure of the teacher shows the failure of schools to effectively teach students. The obvious emotions shown by the teacher also touch a little on the idea that education and student teacher relationships aren't always so black and white. The teacher and students are supposed to have a strictly professional relationship but that isn't always the case (as we see in the film) and that attributes to the failure of the teacher, the school, and the students. A lot of what caused the conflict of the story and a part of the message is that all the characters had different objectives the teacher wanted to enlighten and educate but only a small amount wanted to be educated, the different objectives collided and attributed to the teachers breakdown and the classes. The sad tone plays into the all around upsetting atmosphere schools creates. In too many cases there is more of a negative than a positive and the tone of the film is meant to help show that. c. contrast the film with the savior/teacher films we watched clips of The obvious main difference between this film and the other teacher films we watched is that the teacher failed. He couldn't get the students interested in the class and eventually they won unlike dangerous minds or dead poets society. In our film our teacher wasn't such a hero which Is the most used option except in maybe the class. In most of the other films we watched the teacher switched to immanence as then succeeded but in our film there was no switch the teacher was unable to teach the students. There was also no change in the student perspective.
The breakdown of the teacher had no effect on the students in the other films we watched the teacher made a connection with the students but in our film no such connection was made. Another difference in the our film was that there was a collection if different types of students in most of the films we watched (except for maybe hamlet 2) there was only bad kids in dangerous minds and freedom writers only good kids in dead poet society. However in our film there were some smart kids some rebels and some gossipers.
d. theorize (explore thoughtfully and powerfully) the connection between salvation and education/schooling in our culture I think there is a big difference between salvation and education in our school system. Of all the teachers in new york i would guess that less than one percent truly enlighten or save their students. Sure there is the occasional teacher that can really help a student get a better life but for the most part giving an education is really just about going through the motions. Salvation from good teachers doesn't seem to happen often enough, educating helping or saving and standard schooling in this country don't seem to correlate. they are almost opposites.
A lot can be learned from the fact that this film was made by students, the group that understands school better than anyone. Its shows the opposite reality of what the savior teacher films say, all the movies like Dangerous Minds seem unrealistic. School in our culture does a good job drilling information into students heads but is ineffective when it comes to helping students who need help with something other than what is in the district curriculum.
