SES Forums

Alban wrote:This holds true, from my experience of long-term SES members. Attracts people looking for affinity, looking to belong, people with little tolerance of ambiguity or pluralism, looking for definite answers, and prepared to put their own values and self-worth to the side.

They would make good soldiers.

mgormez wrote:They would make good soldiers.

It's funny, I was thinking that as I wrote it.

The schools do (or at least - did) partake in the cadets, which is relatively unusual, but not unknown amongst other schools. I'm not pointing to some sort of sinister link or anything, but there certainly is a common ideology between the two.

Alban

Hello all,

I was intrigued; I'll have to look around a bit and see if I can find the paragraph quoted above in the 2005 spectrum.

I myself know quite a few girls from the St James girls sixth form, being in the sixth form at the boys school (yeah yeah, another one comes to join the fight - bear with me please). Please realise that while the school is, and I'll admit, very old fashioned here, I can tell you from (personal) experience that this sort of thing just doesn't rub off with them. There are a great deal of other external factors I'm sure that affect this sort of thing, and while I don't confess to know how women think (good Lord) I know it doesn't turn them into mindless house wives like a lot of people are making out.

The school, like the boys school, doesn't teach people to be subservient, it teaches people values. I honestly think I was/am priviledged to go to the school, considering the education I've had before was sub-standard (I was home taught for a year). Now that I've been here 7 years, I often forget how thankful I was when I first joined that I didn't go to one of the state schools down where I lived.

Having said that, I can understand why parents and others are concerned, it?s your child, of course you make the decision of where to send them to school, no-one else. The school has some old fashioned quirks, though I don't personally see them crop up that often, and women and inequality is such a hot topic, I wouldn't touch it with a 40 foot barge pole. All I can do is speak from my experience.

@Jo-Anne Morgan:

The SES's attitude towards Women has never been fully explained to me, so I can't really comment, but I can say that in the boy?s school, quite a few topics like Homosexuality come in philosophy lessons, and we openly debate things like that. I don't know if that sort of thing happens at the girls school but it would be a good idea; I agree it should be openly discussed.

@Alban:

Yeah, it?s a chance for kids to have fun, and to develop leadership skills. I've been part of the foundation group at the SES for a few months, but I quit cadets after 3 weeks. Just throwing that out there.

So yeah, that?s my two cents/pennies.

/me waves at Sammis.

-Mart

Hi Mart,

Thanks for a nice introduction about yourself.

In terms of teaching values, the question is not that that is wrong, but what are the values, where have they come from, how are they taught, and how does it affect people's beliefs and way they live their life.

Using the topic of homosexuality as an example, while you may be allowed to debate it in Philosophy class, the fact remains that the SES believes and teaches that homosexuality is a choice, is wrong, and is unnatural. I don't think the school can get away with teaching this to the kids at schoo, and I'm sure it doesn't. But the fact that this is what the school believes, surely has an impact, even a subtle one, on the teachings at the children's schools.

Hey Tina!

F.T moving on from your point, there is a lot of homophobic bullying that goes on in the school. It is not addressed by the staff nor is it given any credit. I will be addressing this issue in tomorrow's School Council meeting, it deserves recognition and action.

Samis lol xox

Hi Sam,

I think what you just said supports my point perfectly. Why would the staff make a big deal of it when they believe that it is a choice and is wrong?

Anyway, thank you for acknowledging it and doing the right thing by bringing it up. Bullying of any sort is never acceptable, but especially on issues like this.

FT

p.s. Thank you for taking the time to think and listen to your buddies and change your tone. It means a great deal, and will turn things towards the positive. I will certainly keep mine positive as well.

Thanks for the support F.T, I am currently trying to construct a post to explain my motives, my post in relation to justice and my suspension ect ect. But I am finding it hard to speak freely, and to the point wihtout treading on toes, already Admin has taken it down coz I refferenced my post that resulted in my suspension. It will arrive tonight some time.

Sam xox

Maybe just a re-word with some of the expletives removed would do it.

Please don't think that this is all totally about you, or the current posters from the 6th form.

If you ask Daffy or mgormez about the problems they had with 'Stollar' on this BB you will find that it might help explain how an overeaction may have occured. He was ex St J, very rude and dismissive, and very interested in filling up the board with his new self-interested threads.

I have a feeling that because of the trouble that he caused the admins are wary of letting it happen again.

Good luck with the re-write, I would be happy to offer suggestions if you PM a draft to me. It sounds like it needs to be said.

K

The SES's attitude towards Women has never been fully explained to me, so I can't really comment

Well, Bella, a current adult student at the Brisbane SES school has described it thus:

Bella wrote:Yup, women obeying men (specifically their father or husband) is suggested as the ideal. The father or husband is said to embody the Absolute, so the wife is to assume she is obeying the will of the Absolute. The woman is said to embody nature, or the universe?the wife is (generally speaking) supposed to provide the "heart" in the relationship while the husband (generally speaking) provides the reason.

And

Bella wrote:NYC, I've found that "obedience" can be - and is - interpreted on quite a few levels. Ideally, it means that the husband's or father's word on a subject is final.

So according to Bella the SES teaching is that men should be the decision-makers.

Martyn, in your short time in foundation group have you noticed that while there are a few female tutors they are ALWAYS assisted by women? It would throw a kink in the SES worldview for a female tutor to have a male assistant. Just not natural, don?t you know.

Bella is not talking about what the SES taught in the 70s, or five years ago, she posted that in august of last year. The org seems to have moved in a progressive direction in some ways, for example accepting the idea of women working outside the home, but the doctrine does not allow for women to be ?the boss.? The Senior Tutor could never be a woman. Why?

Bella wrote:"Men have greater access to reason, and need to cultivate emotion. Women have greater access to emotion, and need to cultivate reason."

That?s the premise, and then the trick is to define ?reason? & see if you agree that men have more of it.

All above quotes can be found on:
http://www.whyaretheydead.net:/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=313&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=15

Thought that these might be of interest to this discussion:

The Laws of Manu ? core to Advaita philosophy - state

154. Though destitute of virtue, or seeking pleasure (elsewhere), or devoid of good qualities, (yet) a husband must be constantly worshipped as a god by a faithful wife.

156. A faithful wife, who desires to dwell (after death) with her husband, must never do anything that might displease him who took her hand, whether he be alive or dead.

A verse in the Upanishad reads (another core text of Advaita and SES):

If she does not willingly yield her body to him, he should buy her with presents. If she is still unyielding, he should strike her with a stick or with his hand and overcome her, repeating the following mantra: "With power and glory I take away your glory." Thus she becomes discredited. (VI.4.7)

I do want to remind you all that although I completely agree with the stuff about women (aren't I eloquent!) the Head of the NYC school for many years was a woman. - Joy Dillingham.

Of course, she had a "nervous breakdown" and left the school.

I think she just got sick of trying to do such work in a place that treated her as the quotes above have shown.

My father felt that she was a wonderful, caring, nonhypocritical tutor, and he has given me many examples to show that she differed from your typical school head in many ways. No wonder she had to leave!

Free Thinker wrote:the Head of the NYC school for many years was a woman. - Joy Dillingham.

really FT? well that does amaze me -- was she married or single? Because if she was married woman, then her husband would have been the Senior Tutor, right?

In my (admittedly short) time w/ the NY school, I never once saw a female tutor assisted by a man. Did you?

NYC - No, she was single. Her assistant was a woman.

Well, one reason that you don't see such a combo of assistants is that once the lower levels split into single-sex groups, there are only men tutors for the male groups, vice versa.

That being said, no I did not see any female tutors in the younger parts that had male helpers. I can't imagine that has changed much.

she was single. Her assistant was a woman.

of course she was. m*********** that infuriates me...are you getting this, Bella? Ms Edmunds?

I can help here. I tutored a relatively junior group and had a man assistant. Got to get the balance right.