'Is sexual promiscuity ruining long term relationships?'
Has anyone ever watched a movie where the husband and wife were really old and still in love. They were best friends and knew each other better than anyone else. They were each others only sexual partners and never had any desires to sleep with anyone else. Now have a look at our society. Divorce is VERY commonplace, and to have only one sexual partner is unheard of and even frowned upon. There are quite a few problems happening around us in the world of relationships, and no one seems to even notice.
First of all, husband and wives of today's society seem to only be together out of necesity or procreation purposes. They are not close and do not even know eachother that well. The reason for this is that our partner is no longer our best friend. We cling to our friends like lifelines, and throw away partners every couple of years. Am I the only one who can see how wrong this is?!?! I feel like I am going mad! The person who you let be closer to you than anyone else (And yes, I mean physcially) should be the person whom you trust and confide in the most. Your partner, with whom you make babies should be your best friend, someone who you will be with for the rest of your life. This is why the courting process is supposed to be long and drawn out. You should get to know the person that you are going to marry, so then you are VERY sure that it is them that you want to spend the rest of your life with.
But in saying all of that, the bigger problem and point of the topic, is sexual promiscuity. In our society you must 'try before you buy'. Those who don't are teased and looked down upon. How can you marry someone if you do not know how they are in bed? What a ridiculous statement! My answer to that is how do you know if someone is bad in bed if you have both never been with anyone else? It makes sense, doesn't it? In the days of old (Like the 1600's) sex was seen as a very special thing, to be protected and savoured. To have sex before marriage was to taint someone, and to have multiple partners was dirty and vulgar. By multiple partners being commonplace we have lost how special sex is. Now it is as normal as kissing or even holding hands. Again, I feel like I am the only sane person on the planet! So many problems can be avoided by only having one partner! Bastard children, STD's (STI's), unreal expectations, feelings for old partner's being sparked, children to other partners, child custody, alimony... I could go on forever!
I think we need to remind ourselves of what our grandmother's used to say, 'no one wants to buy the cow when you're giving out the milk for free!' Unfortunately, the sad truth is that we are losing everything that is special in our lives, and we are filling that void with crap! We need to go back to the days when the simple things were the most special. We should get a thrill from holding holds, and reserve the most delicate and important parts of ourselves for our special ONE.
Please let me know if I am not going mad, or if I am. I would love to know if I make any sense to the rest of the world.
-T.J.
Wednesday, 28 March 2012
Friday, 23 March 2012
Week 8: Children's Lunchboxes
It seems that responses are becoming less and less frequent, so I am not going to tally the previous weeks for and against, but I will just move on to the next topic. So, back to children and the vast multitude of issues therein, this week I am going to discuss:
"Should schools be allowed to refuse to let our children eat certain items in their lunchbox?"
So, your children's lunchbox contents are becoming more and more of a topic for debate. The biggest problem that I can see is the irresponsible parents who send their children to school with nothing but rubbish! They think it is okay to give their child a bag of minties and think that they will get all of their nutrition from this. It is because of these individuals that the rest of us are being punished by the education system. But now the good parents are being dictated to about what should and should not be included in their children's lunchbox. First of all I wold like to clarify that I am NOT talking about things related to allergies. If a student in the class has a severe nut allergy for example, I can completely understand restricting the lunchboxes in that respect.
I have heard of a case recently where a woman's little boy took a homemade cupcake to kindy with him, and he was not allowed to eat it. I was under the impression that these are OUR children, and do not belong to the state. If I want my child to eat a cupcake, I will give them a cupcake. We should not be teaching our youth that treats are forbidden and sugar is EVIL, or that the state has the final say! As all things in life, I believe that moderation is the key. In my child's lunchbox there is: a sandwich (which changes spread almost everyday), a few pieces of fruit, and a small treat. She knows that should she start misbehaving at school, the treat will no longer be in there. And she loves getting a reward for being a good girl. My child would be devastated if I had sent her to school with a special cupcake for being so good and her teacher said 'no, you cannot eat that!' I am her mother and I know what is best for her!
What gives the education system the right to decide what food is good and what is bad? I find it a constant frustration how much power the gorvernment is taking away from us as parents. Whatever happened to good old fashioned common sense and discretion? Their life is MY responsibility, and no one (except my partner) is more invested in their interests than me. Are the educators the be-all and end-all of knowledge on nutrition and health? I have always been of the belief that if you NEVER eat any sugary or fatty foods, your body does not know how to cope with them when it does get exposed to them. So a little bad every now and then is good, and it shows your body how to tolerate such things.
However, and potentially more importantly, I feel that doing this to children is forcing them to focus on body image much too much. Children should not be worried about getting fat or having high cholesterol. It is not wonder that aneorexia and bulemia are so rampant in western countries. We are teaching our children that the most important thing is looking good and watching your weight. Yes, as an adult we need to ensure that we make healthy choices and do not constantly indulge ourselves, but this concept should not even enter a child's mind until they are, well, no longer a child really.
I hate to say it, but the sad truth is, we as parents are losing the power to raise our children as we see fit at younger and younger ages. Soon, formula will be delivered door-to-door, and breastfeeding will be illegal, smacking will be an imprisonable offense, and they will get all of their meals from 'the system'. What a disgusting and miserable future we are facing!
Come on, let our kids be kids. Let them eat chocolate and biscuits! And especially, let them eat a yummy cupcake, made by their own mother with love. I think it is time we took back our rights as parents! I for one am sending a cupcake with my child today, are you? Please, let me know your frustrations on this issue, and tell me if they got to eat their treat or not.
-T.J.
"Should schools be allowed to refuse to let our children eat certain items in their lunchbox?"
So, your children's lunchbox contents are becoming more and more of a topic for debate. The biggest problem that I can see is the irresponsible parents who send their children to school with nothing but rubbish! They think it is okay to give their child a bag of minties and think that they will get all of their nutrition from this. It is because of these individuals that the rest of us are being punished by the education system. But now the good parents are being dictated to about what should and should not be included in their children's lunchbox. First of all I wold like to clarify that I am NOT talking about things related to allergies. If a student in the class has a severe nut allergy for example, I can completely understand restricting the lunchboxes in that respect.
I have heard of a case recently where a woman's little boy took a homemade cupcake to kindy with him, and he was not allowed to eat it. I was under the impression that these are OUR children, and do not belong to the state. If I want my child to eat a cupcake, I will give them a cupcake. We should not be teaching our youth that treats are forbidden and sugar is EVIL, or that the state has the final say! As all things in life, I believe that moderation is the key. In my child's lunchbox there is: a sandwich (which changes spread almost everyday), a few pieces of fruit, and a small treat. She knows that should she start misbehaving at school, the treat will no longer be in there. And she loves getting a reward for being a good girl. My child would be devastated if I had sent her to school with a special cupcake for being so good and her teacher said 'no, you cannot eat that!' I am her mother and I know what is best for her!
What gives the education system the right to decide what food is good and what is bad? I find it a constant frustration how much power the gorvernment is taking away from us as parents. Whatever happened to good old fashioned common sense and discretion? Their life is MY responsibility, and no one (except my partner) is more invested in their interests than me. Are the educators the be-all and end-all of knowledge on nutrition and health? I have always been of the belief that if you NEVER eat any sugary or fatty foods, your body does not know how to cope with them when it does get exposed to them. So a little bad every now and then is good, and it shows your body how to tolerate such things.
However, and potentially more importantly, I feel that doing this to children is forcing them to focus on body image much too much. Children should not be worried about getting fat or having high cholesterol. It is not wonder that aneorexia and bulemia are so rampant in western countries. We are teaching our children that the most important thing is looking good and watching your weight. Yes, as an adult we need to ensure that we make healthy choices and do not constantly indulge ourselves, but this concept should not even enter a child's mind until they are, well, no longer a child really.
I hate to say it, but the sad truth is, we as parents are losing the power to raise our children as we see fit at younger and younger ages. Soon, formula will be delivered door-to-door, and breastfeeding will be illegal, smacking will be an imprisonable offense, and they will get all of their meals from 'the system'. What a disgusting and miserable future we are facing!
Come on, let our kids be kids. Let them eat chocolate and biscuits! And especially, let them eat a yummy cupcake, made by their own mother with love. I think it is time we took back our rights as parents! I for one am sending a cupcake with my child today, are you? Please, let me know your frustrations on this issue, and tell me if they got to eat their treat or not.
-T.J.
Thursday, 22 March 2012
Responses/Opinions on the issues
I will keep a tally of people's opinion of my issues here, so feel free to add comments to old issues at any time as I will update this on a weekly basis. I look forward to hearing anything and everything that anyone has to say on all of my topics. Happy reading!
Week 1: Children's Discipline
"Should smacking your children be made illegal?"
For: 1
Against: 2
Week 2: Racism
"Has racism become acceptable?"
For: 3
Against: 0
Week 3: Feminism
"Has the feminist movement gone too far?"
For: 2
Against: 2
Week 4: Celebrity Chefs
"Do celebrity chefs have too much power?"
For: 2
Against: 2
Week 5: School
"Is school letting our children down?"
For: 3
Against: 1
Week 6: Politicians
"Are politician's wasting our time and our money?"
For: 1
Against: 0
Week 7: Dangerous Drivers
"Are timid drivers more dangerous than aggressive drivers?"
For: 1
Against: 0
Week 8: Children's Lunboxes
"Should schools be allowed to refuse to let our children eat certain items in their lunchbox?"
For: 1
Against: 3
Week 9: Relationships
"Is sexual promiscuity ruining long term relationships?"
For: 2
Against: 1
Week 10: Easter
"Are children missing the real meaning of Easter?"
For: 2
Against: 1
Week 11: Religion
"Does religion make the world a better place?"
For: 4
Against: 5
Week 12: Relationships 2
"Are people using divorce as a first resort instead of a last?"
For: 3
Against: 1
Week 14: Breastfeeding
"Should babies begin solids before six months?"
For: 0
Against: 6
Week 15: Grandparents
"Are grandparents being forced to practically raise their grandchildren?"
For: 4
Against: 0
Week 16: Smoking
"Is smoking killing the next generation?"
For: 1
Against: 0
Week 17: Child Professionals
"Is it a good idea for your children to have a career?"
For:
Against:
Week 1: Children's Discipline
"Should smacking your children be made illegal?"
For: 1
Against: 2
Week 2: Racism
"Has racism become acceptable?"
For: 3
Against: 0
Week 3: Feminism
"Has the feminist movement gone too far?"
For: 2
Against: 2
Week 4: Celebrity Chefs
"Do celebrity chefs have too much power?"
For: 2
Against: 2
Week 5: School
"Is school letting our children down?"
For: 3
Against: 1
Week 6: Politicians
"Are politician's wasting our time and our money?"
For: 1
Against: 0
Week 7: Dangerous Drivers
"Are timid drivers more dangerous than aggressive drivers?"
For: 1
Against: 0
Week 8: Children's Lunboxes
"Should schools be allowed to refuse to let our children eat certain items in their lunchbox?"
For: 1
Against: 3
Week 9: Relationships
"Is sexual promiscuity ruining long term relationships?"
For: 2
Against: 1
Week 10: Easter
"Are children missing the real meaning of Easter?"
For: 2
Against: 1
Week 11: Religion
"Does religion make the world a better place?"
For: 4
Against: 5
Week 12: Relationships 2
"Are people using divorce as a first resort instead of a last?"
For: 3
Against: 1
Week 14: Breastfeeding
"Should babies begin solids before six months?"
For: 0
Against: 6
Week 15: Grandparents
"Are grandparents being forced to practically raise their grandchildren?"
For: 4
Against: 0
Week 16: Smoking
"Is smoking killing the next generation?"
For: 1
Against: 0
Week 17: Child Professionals
"Is it a good idea for your children to have a career?"
For:
Against:
Friday, 16 March 2012
Week 7: Dangerous Drivers
So, it seems to me that people are too scared to give an opinion on my political suggestions, with only one comment so far. But that is okay, I have another low-key topic that should be less controvertial and intimidating.
My recent roadtrip gave me the inspiration this week to write about bad drivers. Let's face it, everyone has seen or encountered one. My question is not however about whether or not you have seen them, but more to the point who causes more problems?
"Are timid drivers more dangerous than aggressive drivers?"
First things first. I have been taught by a very intelligent person that most arguments occur from misunderstanding people's definitions. So, I will clarify.
Timid: Someone who is slow, nervous, indecisive, over-cautious
Aggressive: Someone who makes quick decisions and is quick to act on them, usually taking advantage of opportunities as they arise
How many times have you been approaching a round-about, checked to make sure that no one is coming, and went to go, when you have had to suddenly brake, because the old woman in the little corolla in front of you is sitting there waiting to see if that car approaching the round-about ten minutes away will be in her way? Or people who suddenly slam on their brakes because a car 6 vehicles ahead started braking. Timid drivers tend to take WAY too long to make a decision on the road, slowing up and aggravating all those around them, and their decision is usually a bad one anyway!
That is not to say that aggressive drivers do not have their flaws. But for the most part, they just want to be on their way. So if you do not get in their way, aggressive drivers are out of your hair and gone. But the timid, slow drivers, who do 50 in an 80 zone, in the right hand lane (left for you Americans), sitting beside a big truck who cannot go any faster... I am beginning to understand why the aggressive drivers are so angry. Timid drivers tend to make normal people act irrationally and even dangerously, just to get away from them. We take risks and get filled with rage by them. How many people have tail-gated (driven RIGHT behind someone else's vehicle, practically touching them - for the International audience) someone because they were driving TOO cautiously?
The fact is, when everyone on the road is driving normal or aggressive, there are not as many accidents as when a timid driver enters the mix. And the sad truth is, we are encouraged to drive over-cautiously, with little to no decision making and we are losing our ability to be good drivers who make good, quick decisions.
Please, let me know your opinion on timid and or aggressive drivers. And please, don't be TIMID, voice your opinion.
-T.J.
My recent roadtrip gave me the inspiration this week to write about bad drivers. Let's face it, everyone has seen or encountered one. My question is not however about whether or not you have seen them, but more to the point who causes more problems?
"Are timid drivers more dangerous than aggressive drivers?"
First things first. I have been taught by a very intelligent person that most arguments occur from misunderstanding people's definitions. So, I will clarify.
Timid: Someone who is slow, nervous, indecisive, over-cautious
Aggressive: Someone who makes quick decisions and is quick to act on them, usually taking advantage of opportunities as they arise
How many times have you been approaching a round-about, checked to make sure that no one is coming, and went to go, when you have had to suddenly brake, because the old woman in the little corolla in front of you is sitting there waiting to see if that car approaching the round-about ten minutes away will be in her way? Or people who suddenly slam on their brakes because a car 6 vehicles ahead started braking. Timid drivers tend to take WAY too long to make a decision on the road, slowing up and aggravating all those around them, and their decision is usually a bad one anyway!
That is not to say that aggressive drivers do not have their flaws. But for the most part, they just want to be on their way. So if you do not get in their way, aggressive drivers are out of your hair and gone. But the timid, slow drivers, who do 50 in an 80 zone, in the right hand lane (left for you Americans), sitting beside a big truck who cannot go any faster... I am beginning to understand why the aggressive drivers are so angry. Timid drivers tend to make normal people act irrationally and even dangerously, just to get away from them. We take risks and get filled with rage by them. How many people have tail-gated (driven RIGHT behind someone else's vehicle, practically touching them - for the International audience) someone because they were driving TOO cautiously?
The fact is, when everyone on the road is driving normal or aggressive, there are not as many accidents as when a timid driver enters the mix. And the sad truth is, we are encouraged to drive over-cautiously, with little to no decision making and we are losing our ability to be good drivers who make good, quick decisions.
Please, let me know your opinion on timid and or aggressive drivers. And please, don't be TIMID, voice your opinion.
-T.J.
Thursday, 8 March 2012
Week 6: Politician's
It is clear from the 10 comments received that education for our youth is something we all take seriously, and everyone pretty much agreed with my points.
As an Australian, I am only able to make my comments this week on the Australian political system, as it would be unfair for me to judge the government of a country that I am not a part of. So if you are one of our readers from The USA, Germany, Russia or Vietnam, please leave a comment letting us Australians know how your political system works, (or doesn't).
I have been very hesitant to delve into the realm of politics. It is very personal and private to each individual, not to mention the fact that I do not want to get letter bombed should I say something others disagree with. However, there are some points that I feel need bringing up. To my actual point for this week,
"Are politicians wasting our time and our money?"
Now I can practically see everybodies heads frantically nodding up and down, (finally, a topic that I am confident that everyone will agree with). But I am very serious. Back in the middle ages, a King ruled over his people, and the people generally loved him. The greatest honour that one could hope for was to be praised by the King. It was blasphemy to speak ill of him, and he always stood with his men on the battlefield. (please forgive my romantic, hollywood version of history) However, nowadays, political leaders are chosen by their small group of peers, and are mocked openly with little to no respect from the people. This leader, with the help of their friends, gets to make decisions without the approval of the people, and use any excuse that comes to mind should these decisions fail. My first example is the recycled water (poo-water if you ask me). Yes, I am sure there are many 'good' reasons why this should be put in. However, when the people were asked if they wanted this, the answer was a very clear "NO!" But did our noble leaders listen? No, they did what THEY wanted to, regardless of the publics opinion. As I said last week with regards to the schooling system. They make changes without fully thinking things through, and without giving any regard to the publics opinion. If this is to be a true democracy, I would like the power to either vote on serious issues, or be given the right to vote on the person who gets the final say on these things. (Never going to happen, pointless to dream)
They are treated like royalty, being paid EXORBIDANT salaries (for the rest of their lives!) and even given a special 'palace' to live in. But does anyone see Gillard standing at the front of our metaphorical battlefield? Hell no! The only battling she does is sticking a knife in her former leaders back! (two months before the end of his term, too!) Should our country face any real danger or problem, I can guarantee you that the 'leaders' of our country would be the last people to help us. In my opinion, the political leaders of our country should be paid MINIMUM WAGE! (that is what I have to live on, raising my four children, so if I can do it, they can too!) I am okay for them to be given a house to live in, and for their work related airfares to be paid for by the country. I would even be okay with them being given a car, because this way they only have to pay for their food and bills. They get to feel what it is like to be one of the people, and then they do not enter politics for the money. The people in power would only be those who were truly passionate about the cause. This would also save BILLIONS each year. There you go, I have just solved the Global Financial Crisis! (For Australia anyway) So they would not need this stupid new carbon tax, (which by the way, once again the people have said they DID NOT want it, but did they listen?) and our country would be one of the wealthiest!
But, this will never happen, because the sad truth is, politicians are greedy, selfish idiots who care more about their wallet and their ego than they do about the country and its people.
Any comments, either for or against are welcomed, and also as I said, I would LOVE to hear some truths about other countries politics. Just please keep in mind everyone that I do not recommend divulging your own personal political preferance. This is not for or against either political party, as lets face it, politicians are the same regardless of their side. (Please remember that all of my comments are generalisations, there's always an exception to the rule) However, in saying that, I can't wait to hear everyone's opinions on this everyday annoyance!
-T.J.
As an Australian, I am only able to make my comments this week on the Australian political system, as it would be unfair for me to judge the government of a country that I am not a part of. So if you are one of our readers from The USA, Germany, Russia or Vietnam, please leave a comment letting us Australians know how your political system works, (or doesn't).
I have been very hesitant to delve into the realm of politics. It is very personal and private to each individual, not to mention the fact that I do not want to get letter bombed should I say something others disagree with. However, there are some points that I feel need bringing up. To my actual point for this week,
"Are politicians wasting our time and our money?"
Now I can practically see everybodies heads frantically nodding up and down, (finally, a topic that I am confident that everyone will agree with). But I am very serious. Back in the middle ages, a King ruled over his people, and the people generally loved him. The greatest honour that one could hope for was to be praised by the King. It was blasphemy to speak ill of him, and he always stood with his men on the battlefield. (please forgive my romantic, hollywood version of history) However, nowadays, political leaders are chosen by their small group of peers, and are mocked openly with little to no respect from the people. This leader, with the help of their friends, gets to make decisions without the approval of the people, and use any excuse that comes to mind should these decisions fail. My first example is the recycled water (poo-water if you ask me). Yes, I am sure there are many 'good' reasons why this should be put in. However, when the people were asked if they wanted this, the answer was a very clear "NO!" But did our noble leaders listen? No, they did what THEY wanted to, regardless of the publics opinion. As I said last week with regards to the schooling system. They make changes without fully thinking things through, and without giving any regard to the publics opinion. If this is to be a true democracy, I would like the power to either vote on serious issues, or be given the right to vote on the person who gets the final say on these things. (Never going to happen, pointless to dream)
They are treated like royalty, being paid EXORBIDANT salaries (for the rest of their lives!) and even given a special 'palace' to live in. But does anyone see Gillard standing at the front of our metaphorical battlefield? Hell no! The only battling she does is sticking a knife in her former leaders back! (two months before the end of his term, too!) Should our country face any real danger or problem, I can guarantee you that the 'leaders' of our country would be the last people to help us. In my opinion, the political leaders of our country should be paid MINIMUM WAGE! (that is what I have to live on, raising my four children, so if I can do it, they can too!) I am okay for them to be given a house to live in, and for their work related airfares to be paid for by the country. I would even be okay with them being given a car, because this way they only have to pay for their food and bills. They get to feel what it is like to be one of the people, and then they do not enter politics for the money. The people in power would only be those who were truly passionate about the cause. This would also save BILLIONS each year. There you go, I have just solved the Global Financial Crisis! (For Australia anyway) So they would not need this stupid new carbon tax, (which by the way, once again the people have said they DID NOT want it, but did they listen?) and our country would be one of the wealthiest!
But, this will never happen, because the sad truth is, politicians are greedy, selfish idiots who care more about their wallet and their ego than they do about the country and its people.
Any comments, either for or against are welcomed, and also as I said, I would LOVE to hear some truths about other countries politics. Just please keep in mind everyone that I do not recommend divulging your own personal political preferance. This is not for or against either political party, as lets face it, politicians are the same regardless of their side. (Please remember that all of my comments are generalisations, there's always an exception to the rule) However, in saying that, I can't wait to hear everyone's opinions on this everyday annoyance!
-T.J.
Friday, 2 March 2012
Week 5: School
Hello again everyone. I am glad to see that people are still reading and responding by week five. With some last minutes comments, it seems that our debate over celebrity chefs is... A draw! (this seems to be a trend) But now onto something a little more serious which is a daily annoyance for parents like myself.
Is school letting our children down?
Back in my day (yes, I know, I sound like a ninety year old) 'prep' or pre-school as it was then called, was a half-day of school, designed for the specific purpose of getting children used to a schooling environment, and PREparing them for the routine and rules of school. However, nowadays things are quite different! My eldest child has just started prep, and already, she is expected to learn science, english, mathematics, and even has HOMEWORK! Come on! She is five! This 'prep' year is not even mandatory! It is supposed to simply be a year of school to get her used to being away from Mummy and Daddy, and following instructions given to her by someone else. (I should not be punished for raising my child myself instead of dumping them in childcare, to be raised by strangers) But the government has decided to take advantage of this extra year and cram their heads full of information that they should not be learning yet. What is so bad about kids being kids and enjoying their childhood for a little bit?
Back to the homework. Are teachers that inept that they think a five year could not possibly fit all of their 'work' into school hours?! In our society there is an increasing problem with depression and stress, even in children. Much of this stems from people's inability to seperate their work life and their home life. By constantly bringing work home with you, you are not giving your mind the down time it requires to relax and destress. Yet so many people do it! We are teaching our children from such an early age to adopt this dreadful bad habit! I understand homework if the child has been playing up or not doing their work at school. If they want to waste the teachers time, then the teacher should waste their home time, but my daughter is very good at school and always completes the tasks set to her. It is a little unfair that her relax time should be filled with learning words. What is her teacher being paid for if I am the one teaching her? She may as well be home schooled.
Another problem that worries me is the move of grade 7 from primary school to high school. Well, now that they are using prep as grade 1, it makes sense to move it. But they have not looked at the bigger picture. The 'kids' in grade 12, 11 and even 10 are usually having sex, doing drugs and drinking alcohol. It is bad enough that the grade 8 and 9 are exposed to this very active age group, but now we want our tiny little grade 7's around them too?! Most people reading this must be thinking 'aren't you over-reacting?' No, I am not. I remember high school. In grade 7 I was a child, playing hide the apple sticker in the toilets, and much too scared of the opposite sex to even think about dating them. Not 2 months after I started high school I had my first date. My friends were into drugs, and I was teased for not being interested in sex, drugs and alcohol. In my opinion, schools should be split into three groups. prep - 5, 6 - 9, 10 - 12. Or at the very least, do not put our little, innocent, vulnerable babies into high school. I am rather upset that the government just decided to do this, never even asking our opinion! I for one say 'no!' I think maybe I should take my kids out of school for that year, although that would harbour its own problems.
The government is making so many changes to our children's education, and the sad truth is, none of them are beneficial, and our kids will pay for these bad choices with their future.
So flood the page with all of your crazy opinions both for and against. Also, feel free to leave comments on old pages. It won't count towards the current tally of for or against, but I will still read it, and later on I will try to update the tally. I look forward to everyone's opinions. Happy reading.
-T.J.
Is school letting our children down?
Back in my day (yes, I know, I sound like a ninety year old) 'prep' or pre-school as it was then called, was a half-day of school, designed for the specific purpose of getting children used to a schooling environment, and PREparing them for the routine and rules of school. However, nowadays things are quite different! My eldest child has just started prep, and already, she is expected to learn science, english, mathematics, and even has HOMEWORK! Come on! She is five! This 'prep' year is not even mandatory! It is supposed to simply be a year of school to get her used to being away from Mummy and Daddy, and following instructions given to her by someone else. (I should not be punished for raising my child myself instead of dumping them in childcare, to be raised by strangers) But the government has decided to take advantage of this extra year and cram their heads full of information that they should not be learning yet. What is so bad about kids being kids and enjoying their childhood for a little bit?
Back to the homework. Are teachers that inept that they think a five year could not possibly fit all of their 'work' into school hours?! In our society there is an increasing problem with depression and stress, even in children. Much of this stems from people's inability to seperate their work life and their home life. By constantly bringing work home with you, you are not giving your mind the down time it requires to relax and destress. Yet so many people do it! We are teaching our children from such an early age to adopt this dreadful bad habit! I understand homework if the child has been playing up or not doing their work at school. If they want to waste the teachers time, then the teacher should waste their home time, but my daughter is very good at school and always completes the tasks set to her. It is a little unfair that her relax time should be filled with learning words. What is her teacher being paid for if I am the one teaching her? She may as well be home schooled.
Another problem that worries me is the move of grade 7 from primary school to high school. Well, now that they are using prep as grade 1, it makes sense to move it. But they have not looked at the bigger picture. The 'kids' in grade 12, 11 and even 10 are usually having sex, doing drugs and drinking alcohol. It is bad enough that the grade 8 and 9 are exposed to this very active age group, but now we want our tiny little grade 7's around them too?! Most people reading this must be thinking 'aren't you over-reacting?' No, I am not. I remember high school. In grade 7 I was a child, playing hide the apple sticker in the toilets, and much too scared of the opposite sex to even think about dating them. Not 2 months after I started high school I had my first date. My friends were into drugs, and I was teased for not being interested in sex, drugs and alcohol. In my opinion, schools should be split into three groups. prep - 5, 6 - 9, 10 - 12. Or at the very least, do not put our little, innocent, vulnerable babies into high school. I am rather upset that the government just decided to do this, never even asking our opinion! I for one say 'no!' I think maybe I should take my kids out of school for that year, although that would harbour its own problems.
The government is making so many changes to our children's education, and the sad truth is, none of them are beneficial, and our kids will pay for these bad choices with their future.
So flood the page with all of your crazy opinions both for and against. Also, feel free to leave comments on old pages. It won't count towards the current tally of for or against, but I will still read it, and later on I will try to update the tally. I look forward to everyone's opinions. Happy reading.
-T.J.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)