I am in a quandary, and I prefer to think about this out loud, (well, typed and published), than simply ponder in endless circles. I have friends in pain and look for a way to help.
I have buried four husbands. (No, I do not think I killed them, though I am a demanding old broad.) I have had a couple of lovers along the way as well. I think I know something about men, though will never claim to be an expert.
It has been my observation that many men simply do not emotionally grow up. They get stuck in high school and cannot move on. Characteristics of such boy-men include a strong desire to control, a strong desire to protect, a sense of jealousy that springs suddenly and surprisingly, and continuous efforts to keep their female partner from growing. That would mean the woman has outgrown the man, at least in the emotional maturity department.
I think many women experience this. I think they respond in one of two ways: they pretend they are not growing for fear they will lose the stability they believe the man provides. It is nice to have a man who will be at home all night through the dark and things that go bump in the dark. It is nice to know you always have a date. It is nice to know that someone is there to split child rearing duties and contribute to the familial financial pot. And yes, it is nice to have sex on a regular basis without ruining one’s reputation. Women who sacrifice their own growth to appease the man suffer more and more as life goes on. I think they know what they are doing and gradually the resentment will grow. The resentment will grow if they develop new friends, promotions, and continue to seek to learn and grow while the male seeks to retard that growth rather than support it. While she is in response #1 however, she will abandon friends and behavior that threaten her partner. This will not be clear to her until years later, but it will become clear. It is my observation that a relationship like this will fall apart shortly after the children leave home and the woman realizes there is really no reason to stay. If so, then these women may begin to respond in the second way.
When a woman suddenly realizes she is missing much of life because her husband has become an anchor, another child to rear, then she begins to rethink her role. She is suffering and sacrificing because he is a child. She can begin to consider other options. Those options include things like making it very clear she intends to grow, she pursues promotions, degrees, travel, new colleagues and friends all the while her husband mopes and complains about his newly ambitious partner. The complaining accelerates the pursuit of growth. Some women will take a lover, some just a safe one-night stand, some will join a group that pulls them more and more out of the home. As a woman enters this second response she may be racked with guilt and shame, knowing she is behaving in ways contrary to her upbringing, her husband’s expectations, and her faith.
The guilt can become severe; the shame horrible. Depression can ensue. More and more risky behavior can occur. She may be experiencing brief moments of joy that yield hours of guilt and self flagellation.
I have two dear friends, both approaching 40, both with children, both in the process of seriously outgrowing their husbands. One is still in response mode #1, faithful, self-sacrificing, doing all that she is asked to do, fearful that her marriage will crumble. She is yet to see herself as her own person. She still sees her husband as her boss, not her partner. The other has entered response mode #2 but is racked with guilt. She knows she has much to contribute, much more to learn, and she is loving it, but hating the lack of support at home. She cannot return to response #1 and she knows it.
How do I help these wonderful female friends? Young enough to be my daughters; close enough to share their dilemmas, true friends both of them.
What I would like to do is sit their men down and slap them around and tell them to grow up. Tell them that in a partnership there is dialog. There must be mutual support. There cannot be demands made from fear. Petty jealousies, petty control, petty ground rules that allow the man to continue to act as though he were in high school playing macho bubba, beer drinker, hunter, tobacco chewer, and topless bar attendee while his wife must maintain the same behavior expected of a high school sweetheart and wife like those of the last century and millennia before. So sad.
It has been my experience, however, that one cannot talk to a person about a higher order of relationships when they are stuck in a lower order. They just do not get it. It is like talking physics to 2nd graders. I cannot help these women with their husbands by directly talking to the husbands. The husbands will not get it, and would run from such an encounter anyway. Nothing scares such men more than intelligent, liberated women who are not at all dependent on a male.
Shall I merely comfort, listen and prompt when it seems appropriate? I believe that is all I can do for now. I will just be there. If they call on me for my thoughts I will share. If not, sadly, I will sit on the sidelines and watch their relationships crumble while they personally grow.
Or is that how real growth occurs? Deep pain launching great strides?
I’m in a quandary.
Thursday, March 14, 2013
Monday, March 11, 2013
Limits to the Right to Bare Arms
As a young girl growing up in New Orleans I was totally ignorant of friends and families owning firearms. Perhaps some did, but I did not know. It was not polite dinner talk. It was assumed that gangsters had guns, but not good people. We trusted our police to keep us safe and for the most part they did, even in the days of depression, prohibition, and war. So, how did we get to where we are now, she asks rhetorically.
In the earliest days of European immigration to North America war-like conflict was present. Some Native Americans (our earliest illegal immigrants) were hostile to the new wave of illegal immigrants. The immigrants themselves were hostile to each other. Emerging towns and eventually colonies developed civilian militia’s to provide for the common defense. These militias were not professional soldiers. They were men (Yes, men. Our civil liberties still have not caught up with reality.) who were asked to unyoke their oxen, put down their plows, and to provide their own weapons and ammunition to rise and fend off the threat. They operated much as today’s volunteer fireman in small communities, each man engaged in some means of providing for his family, then dropping everything to respond to a threat. These militia grew from 1512 when first developed to 1774. By 1774, each colony, or state, had their own militia where every able bodied man between the age of 16 and 60 was expected to provide military service. Property and wealth determined rank as there was no professional military, no full-time soldier. These were part-time citizen armies following part-time citizen officers.
In 1775 the Continental Congress created the Continental Army, the first truly trained American militia. George Washington was named Commander-in-Chief and served as General. The purpose of the army was to coordinate the efforts of the militias of various states. The Continental Army was disbanded in 1783 after the Treaty with Paris. America won its independence from Britain using citizen armies, or militias, then disbanded its only full-time, professionally trained army when the war was over.
During and before the Revolutionary War, Colonists were forced to house and feed British soldiers. When these soldiers entered a community or home it was their practice to confiscate all weapons so that the militia could not arise and fight them. The only army America had was its various militias. Disarm militias and we were without defense, without an army.
So, in 1789 the First Continental Congress proposed 12 amendments to the US Constitution. Amendments 1 and 2 were never ratified. Amendments 3 to 12 were and became the first ten amendments to our constitution, our Bill of Rights. The first amendment defined freedoms of religion, speech, the press, and peaceable assembly.
The second amendment read, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Clearly, this amendment was proposed at a time in our country when we did not have a professional standing army. All we had was a militia. To maintain militias, who had to provide their own weapons, this amendment makes sense. This amendment provided the only US Army we had in the late 1700’s. Without an armed citizen militia we were basically defenseless.
The third amendment sheds even more light on the contextual nature of the amendments: “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.” These were wounds from the Revolutionary War and we were not going to let them happen again. Read the 2nd and 3rd amendments together in the context in which they were written and they make great sense. Never shall our people be forced to house an army, never shall our men be forced to give up their arms because we need them to simultaneously serve as our Army/
This is not a treatise on American History or the Bill of Rights. It simply is the observation that amendments numbers 2 and 3 were clearly ratified in the late 1700’s because of our notion of the army and what we would not tolerate in terms of army or militia behavior. Period. Nowhere in this context was there a vision of a full time professional standing Army, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard and National Guard, (which traces its heritage to the colonial militias.) Nowhere in these two amendments could the founding fathers have pictured military bases at home and around the world, much less an Air Force Academy, Naval Academy, and West Point who produce trained officers for a full-time military. Nowhere in this context was there any idea that our citizens would be protected by full time, professional police and armed forces, no notion that the military was now an honored career, as is law enforcement. Nowhere in these two amendments could the founding fathers have had a notion of arming citizens with a full time army and law enforcement standing guard 24/7. One could argue that amendments 2 and 3 could be amended out of the constitution and no significant rights would be diminished from the founding fathers point of view today.
I learned all the above in my public school days taking Civics. That was before right wing politicians would label such learning as socialist or communist because it does not fit their view of the world. Only problem is, it is our civic history, like it or not, and learning about the context of the founding of this great nation is important as we make critical decisions today. We cannot make such decisions unless we can with reason examine our position and that of others. Such a skill is rapidly disappearing.
And for those who argue that hunting is important, and self defense is important they should recognize that if venison is really good to eat someone would herd deer like cattle and you could buy it in Kroger. They should also look to Britain and Australia and Canada where possession of weapons is severely restricted, the crime rate much lower, and the frequency of citizens shooting other citizens is very, very low. We are the most armed nation in the world, and we kill each other at a higher rate than any other nation in the civilized world.
And for those of you who believe that you must remain armed to defend yourself against your own government, I am so sorry you did not graduate from high school and learn about our Constitution and our representative democracy.
And for those of you who say when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns I shall retort when drugs are outlawed only outlaws will deal drugs, when rape is outlawed only outlaws will commit rape, when theft is outlawed only outlaws will steal, etc., etc. etc. In other words, that is not an argument that is a statement of fact.
And for those of you who say that you’ll give up your guns when it is pried from your cold dead hand, I say why admit you are an outlaw?
The NRA is wrong. Individuals owning weapons are a bigger threat to our citizens than almost any disease we can name.
It is time to give up our guns.
I did not mislabel the title, though I chose a homophone for fun: If you want to talk about your right to bare arms let’s talk spaghetti strap dresses and tube tops, both of which are restricted at public schools with hardly an outcry from anyone, much less NRA and hunters.
The right to bare arms as a constitutional right makes no more sense to me than the right to bear arms.
In the earliest days of European immigration to North America war-like conflict was present. Some Native Americans (our earliest illegal immigrants) were hostile to the new wave of illegal immigrants. The immigrants themselves were hostile to each other. Emerging towns and eventually colonies developed civilian militia’s to provide for the common defense. These militias were not professional soldiers. They were men (Yes, men. Our civil liberties still have not caught up with reality.) who were asked to unyoke their oxen, put down their plows, and to provide their own weapons and ammunition to rise and fend off the threat. They operated much as today’s volunteer fireman in small communities, each man engaged in some means of providing for his family, then dropping everything to respond to a threat. These militia grew from 1512 when first developed to 1774. By 1774, each colony, or state, had their own militia where every able bodied man between the age of 16 and 60 was expected to provide military service. Property and wealth determined rank as there was no professional military, no full-time soldier. These were part-time citizen armies following part-time citizen officers.
In 1775 the Continental Congress created the Continental Army, the first truly trained American militia. George Washington was named Commander-in-Chief and served as General. The purpose of the army was to coordinate the efforts of the militias of various states. The Continental Army was disbanded in 1783 after the Treaty with Paris. America won its independence from Britain using citizen armies, or militias, then disbanded its only full-time, professionally trained army when the war was over.
During and before the Revolutionary War, Colonists were forced to house and feed British soldiers. When these soldiers entered a community or home it was their practice to confiscate all weapons so that the militia could not arise and fight them. The only army America had was its various militias. Disarm militias and we were without defense, without an army.
So, in 1789 the First Continental Congress proposed 12 amendments to the US Constitution. Amendments 1 and 2 were never ratified. Amendments 3 to 12 were and became the first ten amendments to our constitution, our Bill of Rights. The first amendment defined freedoms of religion, speech, the press, and peaceable assembly.
The second amendment read, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Clearly, this amendment was proposed at a time in our country when we did not have a professional standing army. All we had was a militia. To maintain militias, who had to provide their own weapons, this amendment makes sense. This amendment provided the only US Army we had in the late 1700’s. Without an armed citizen militia we were basically defenseless.
The third amendment sheds even more light on the contextual nature of the amendments: “No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.” These were wounds from the Revolutionary War and we were not going to let them happen again. Read the 2nd and 3rd amendments together in the context in which they were written and they make great sense. Never shall our people be forced to house an army, never shall our men be forced to give up their arms because we need them to simultaneously serve as our Army/
This is not a treatise on American History or the Bill of Rights. It simply is the observation that amendments numbers 2 and 3 were clearly ratified in the late 1700’s because of our notion of the army and what we would not tolerate in terms of army or militia behavior. Period. Nowhere in this context was there a vision of a full time professional standing Army, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard and National Guard, (which traces its heritage to the colonial militias.) Nowhere in these two amendments could the founding fathers have pictured military bases at home and around the world, much less an Air Force Academy, Naval Academy, and West Point who produce trained officers for a full-time military. Nowhere in this context was there any idea that our citizens would be protected by full time, professional police and armed forces, no notion that the military was now an honored career, as is law enforcement. Nowhere in these two amendments could the founding fathers have had a notion of arming citizens with a full time army and law enforcement standing guard 24/7. One could argue that amendments 2 and 3 could be amended out of the constitution and no significant rights would be diminished from the founding fathers point of view today.
I learned all the above in my public school days taking Civics. That was before right wing politicians would label such learning as socialist or communist because it does not fit their view of the world. Only problem is, it is our civic history, like it or not, and learning about the context of the founding of this great nation is important as we make critical decisions today. We cannot make such decisions unless we can with reason examine our position and that of others. Such a skill is rapidly disappearing.
And for those who argue that hunting is important, and self defense is important they should recognize that if venison is really good to eat someone would herd deer like cattle and you could buy it in Kroger. They should also look to Britain and Australia and Canada where possession of weapons is severely restricted, the crime rate much lower, and the frequency of citizens shooting other citizens is very, very low. We are the most armed nation in the world, and we kill each other at a higher rate than any other nation in the civilized world.
And for those of you who believe that you must remain armed to defend yourself against your own government, I am so sorry you did not graduate from high school and learn about our Constitution and our representative democracy.
And for those of you who say when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns I shall retort when drugs are outlawed only outlaws will deal drugs, when rape is outlawed only outlaws will commit rape, when theft is outlawed only outlaws will steal, etc., etc. etc. In other words, that is not an argument that is a statement of fact.
And for those of you who say that you’ll give up your guns when it is pried from your cold dead hand, I say why admit you are an outlaw?
The NRA is wrong. Individuals owning weapons are a bigger threat to our citizens than almost any disease we can name.
It is time to give up our guns.
I did not mislabel the title, though I chose a homophone for fun: If you want to talk about your right to bare arms let’s talk spaghetti strap dresses and tube tops, both of which are restricted at public schools with hardly an outcry from anyone, much less NRA and hunters.
The right to bare arms as a constitutional right makes no more sense to me than the right to bear arms.
Saturday, March 9, 2013
Will Someone Please Take the Mike Away from Daniel Scott Goeb?
As I age and reflect on Texas politics, especially those laws and policies related to public education, I never cease to be amazed at the elected officials we choose to allow to shape the future of so many children. There should not be a more important committee assignment than the education committee of both the House and the Senate. But alas, politics being what they are, folks get assigned to these committees as a result of their bias, their party and their opinions, not their knowledge or experience or background. Hence, we are always at risk of policy via demagoguery. We are in such a risky place right now.
You may not know Mr. Goeb. He was born in Baltimore, Maryland in 1950 where he grew up in a blue collar neighborhood. He was an only child of a man who worked for the Baltimore Sun for 31 years. I do not know where he went to high school, but I would bet he went to a public school. After high school he went to the University of Maryland where he achieved a degree in English, and was the first member of his family to earn a college degree. He was married, then divorced, then married his current wife in 1976. First job on record was in 1977, which says to me either college or high school took longer than usual, or he was working his way through school, or his early employment is unknown. That job was working in Scranton, Pennsylvania as a TV broadcaster. He did the same gig in Washington DC, and then moved to Houston as a sports broadcaster. At about that time he officially changed his name.
Mr. Goeb loves the mike and the camera, and has made a small fortune as a result of that romance. He bought his own radio station and started his own talk show. It is for that talk show that most Texans first knew him. The talk show was very conservative, which is bizarre considering his background of blue collar neighborhoods, divorce, name changes, etc. But, he is a conservative. Very much so. He founded the TEA party caucus in the Texas Senate. The really nice thing about being a talk show host is that you really do not have to know anything; you must just be glib with your opinions on everything. Meet Mr. Goeb.
Mr. Goeb is now chair of the education committee in the Texas Senate. He is pro-charter schools, pro-vouchers, pro all conservative causes. He has absolutely no background in any of these areas. His entire resume prior to the Senate is in front of camera or just a microphone. He is now shaping Texas Education policy from a position of belief, not fact or reason. He is articulate, the camera loves him and his ability to posture before an audience is truly gifted. But his arguments are shallow and not at all in favor of public education, though he seeks every microphone he can find to espouse his opinions. Asking Mr. Goeb to draft educational policy is akin to asking an atheist to pick the next Pope.
Will someone please take the microphone away from Mr. Goeb? He is dangerous when it comes to education.
He is now known as Senator Dan Patrick.
You may not know Mr. Goeb. He was born in Baltimore, Maryland in 1950 where he grew up in a blue collar neighborhood. He was an only child of a man who worked for the Baltimore Sun for 31 years. I do not know where he went to high school, but I would bet he went to a public school. After high school he went to the University of Maryland where he achieved a degree in English, and was the first member of his family to earn a college degree. He was married, then divorced, then married his current wife in 1976. First job on record was in 1977, which says to me either college or high school took longer than usual, or he was working his way through school, or his early employment is unknown. That job was working in Scranton, Pennsylvania as a TV broadcaster. He did the same gig in Washington DC, and then moved to Houston as a sports broadcaster. At about that time he officially changed his name.
Mr. Goeb loves the mike and the camera, and has made a small fortune as a result of that romance. He bought his own radio station and started his own talk show. It is for that talk show that most Texans first knew him. The talk show was very conservative, which is bizarre considering his background of blue collar neighborhoods, divorce, name changes, etc. But, he is a conservative. Very much so. He founded the TEA party caucus in the Texas Senate. The really nice thing about being a talk show host is that you really do not have to know anything; you must just be glib with your opinions on everything. Meet Mr. Goeb.
Mr. Goeb is now chair of the education committee in the Texas Senate. He is pro-charter schools, pro-vouchers, pro all conservative causes. He has absolutely no background in any of these areas. His entire resume prior to the Senate is in front of camera or just a microphone. He is now shaping Texas Education policy from a position of belief, not fact or reason. He is articulate, the camera loves him and his ability to posture before an audience is truly gifted. But his arguments are shallow and not at all in favor of public education, though he seeks every microphone he can find to espouse his opinions. Asking Mr. Goeb to draft educational policy is akin to asking an atheist to pick the next Pope.
Will someone please take the microphone away from Mr. Goeb? He is dangerous when it comes to education.
He is now known as Senator Dan Patrick.
Happy Anniversary to Me and You
This is the third anniversary of this blog. That is a long time. I am thrilled by the numbers of folks who check in to read my posts, the comments, the feedback. Thank you.
As long as I am able, I shall post my thoughts on the topics prescribed. I have not been boiled in oil, yet. That gives me hope for the future of this country.
I received a tweet yesterday that really touched me and help summarize at least some of my beliefs: "If you do not want your tax dollars to go to help the poor and needy, then stop saying you want a government run on Christian values."
Amen.
As long as I am able, I shall post my thoughts on the topics prescribed. I have not been boiled in oil, yet. That gives me hope for the future of this country.
I received a tweet yesterday that really touched me and help summarize at least some of my beliefs: "If you do not want your tax dollars to go to help the poor and needy, then stop saying you want a government run on Christian values."
Amen.
Sunday, March 3, 2013
What Do You Expect?
I went to see “Die Hard” with an octogenarian friend yesterday. I was terribly disappointed. Turned out it was a Bruce Willis action movie. I had been told it was a risqué movie set in an old folks’ home where the male residents fatally overdosed on Viagra much to the pleasure of the female residents. My expectations were not met, and I found the movie boring compared to what it could have been. No one else in the theatre seemed bored. They were on the edge of their seats. But they did not have the expectation I had. They came to see stuff explode, people get beat up, and Officer McClain escape from situations that defied the odds. Ho Hum. I lived through the Depression, World War II and the Korean War and such Hollywood special effects mean little to me.
The issue is expectations. We feel joy when our expectations are met or exceeded and disappointment when they are not. Settings in which we are consistently disappointed are not where we want to be. Hence, if I have two bad experiences at new restaurant, I am done. If I have years of positive experiences at a restaurant and then have a bad experience, I am likely to come back and try them again.
So, let’s look at this from a 16 year-old point of view. I am a 16 year-old boy, I have access to my family car and several 16 year-old females. I have a computer. I have a smart phone. And I have an X-box connected to my TV. I have instant communication with all my friends, I can surf the web, and I can play exotic, erotic, visually stimulating games on my TV, and I can watch blu ray movies in HD. I live in a world of digital connections, instant answers to every question, and amazing digital entertainment. I unplug, power down and go to school.
There I find one adult female standing in front of a group of other 16 year olds telling me stuff that came out of a book. A book for Hector’s sake! No pictures, no click here for more info, a bound piece of dead paper that will be just the same tomorrow as it was today. The teacher expects me to sit quietly and listen. She does not want me to interact with my peers. She does not want me to go on-line to gather information about the topic of the day. She wants me to absorb. She would rather me be a sponge than a person. I barely survive the boredom until the bell rings, I quickly power-up and catch up with the real world, then power-down to go to another room with another adult female who expects the same thing of me as the first adult female, except this one is talking about another subject. Subjects? What is that all about? The world is connected, not subdivided into little knowledge compartments. Issues flow across social science, science, math and the written or texted word all the time. This deconstruction must be for the adults because it makes no sense to me.
And I do not get this notion of cheating at all. If I do not know an answer and the teacher tells me that is not cheating. If I do not know an answer and I look it up on my smart phone that is cheating. How do you figure that? Isn’t all learning cheating and then remembering the answer? OK, sometimes I figure out the answer by myself, but I use technology when I do that. Why must I perform individually based only on my own memory when no one does that in the real world? There is just too much to know. But I have a gizmo in my pocket that knows everything!
I am bored and I do not want to be here. I do my time, and then escape to a real world, an exciting world of friends and information on the digital highway. I am having fun until I power-down again tomorrow and go back to school. I am a 16 year-old boy.
No wonder kids do not want to go to school. We are way behind them in technology, way behind them in the speed of information processing and discovery. Way behind them in the ability to multi-learn, not multi-task, but from a given digital page learn a host of information by following links, clicking buttons, etc. No textbook can compete. No teacher can compete. We are boring and our information is static. No kid expects to come to school and learn in ways that are exciting, vibrant, flexible, digital, and interactive. They expect to be bored. They get what they expect. They become problems for teachers who sit in the lounge and wring their hands about today’s youth. This hand wringing is more severe than in the past because today’s youth know more than teachers do and they know how to learn faster than teachers can spit it out. The best a teacher can do is slow them down long enough to listen. They are probably pocket texting while it appears they are paying attention.
Die Hard was not what I expected it to be. School has become what kids expect it to be: a mandatory structure where they are at the mercy of adults who don’t get it and will not allow the kids to get it. If we keep the confirmation of this expectation going much longer we will not have any real learners at school, just compliant kids. Time to rethink how we teach and how kids learn. Forcing them into the model we experienced will not work. Let’s surprise our kids and make school interesting, stimulating, interactive, self-learning, collaborative learning citadels of digital excitement! That would be so cool.
Yippee Ki Yay.
The issue is expectations. We feel joy when our expectations are met or exceeded and disappointment when they are not. Settings in which we are consistently disappointed are not where we want to be. Hence, if I have two bad experiences at new restaurant, I am done. If I have years of positive experiences at a restaurant and then have a bad experience, I am likely to come back and try them again.
So, let’s look at this from a 16 year-old point of view. I am a 16 year-old boy, I have access to my family car and several 16 year-old females. I have a computer. I have a smart phone. And I have an X-box connected to my TV. I have instant communication with all my friends, I can surf the web, and I can play exotic, erotic, visually stimulating games on my TV, and I can watch blu ray movies in HD. I live in a world of digital connections, instant answers to every question, and amazing digital entertainment. I unplug, power down and go to school.
There I find one adult female standing in front of a group of other 16 year olds telling me stuff that came out of a book. A book for Hector’s sake! No pictures, no click here for more info, a bound piece of dead paper that will be just the same tomorrow as it was today. The teacher expects me to sit quietly and listen. She does not want me to interact with my peers. She does not want me to go on-line to gather information about the topic of the day. She wants me to absorb. She would rather me be a sponge than a person. I barely survive the boredom until the bell rings, I quickly power-up and catch up with the real world, then power-down to go to another room with another adult female who expects the same thing of me as the first adult female, except this one is talking about another subject. Subjects? What is that all about? The world is connected, not subdivided into little knowledge compartments. Issues flow across social science, science, math and the written or texted word all the time. This deconstruction must be for the adults because it makes no sense to me.
And I do not get this notion of cheating at all. If I do not know an answer and the teacher tells me that is not cheating. If I do not know an answer and I look it up on my smart phone that is cheating. How do you figure that? Isn’t all learning cheating and then remembering the answer? OK, sometimes I figure out the answer by myself, but I use technology when I do that. Why must I perform individually based only on my own memory when no one does that in the real world? There is just too much to know. But I have a gizmo in my pocket that knows everything!
I am bored and I do not want to be here. I do my time, and then escape to a real world, an exciting world of friends and information on the digital highway. I am having fun until I power-down again tomorrow and go back to school. I am a 16 year-old boy.
No wonder kids do not want to go to school. We are way behind them in technology, way behind them in the speed of information processing and discovery. Way behind them in the ability to multi-learn, not multi-task, but from a given digital page learn a host of information by following links, clicking buttons, etc. No textbook can compete. No teacher can compete. We are boring and our information is static. No kid expects to come to school and learn in ways that are exciting, vibrant, flexible, digital, and interactive. They expect to be bored. They get what they expect. They become problems for teachers who sit in the lounge and wring their hands about today’s youth. This hand wringing is more severe than in the past because today’s youth know more than teachers do and they know how to learn faster than teachers can spit it out. The best a teacher can do is slow them down long enough to listen. They are probably pocket texting while it appears they are paying attention.
Die Hard was not what I expected it to be. School has become what kids expect it to be: a mandatory structure where they are at the mercy of adults who don’t get it and will not allow the kids to get it. If we keep the confirmation of this expectation going much longer we will not have any real learners at school, just compliant kids. Time to rethink how we teach and how kids learn. Forcing them into the model we experienced will not work. Let’s surprise our kids and make school interesting, stimulating, interactive, self-learning, collaborative learning citadels of digital excitement! That would be so cool.
Yippee Ki Yay.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
