Boys Want to Be Dangerous

Let them.


raven said...

I wonder how many male teachers are left, especially in primary grades?

Grim said...

According to this site, which claims it is quoting Bureau of Labor Statistics information, the percentage is low but rises as children get older. It's only 3.2% in Preschool & Kindergarten, but rises to 19.3% in elementary/middle school, and 40.8% in Secondary School.

Those number change a bit from year to year, but they're reasonably steady overall.

E Hines said...

Raven, it's not male vs female teachers that is the problem. I had only female teachers until the 6th grade--in the different culture of an earlier time.

The problem is the current public school culture of coddling rather than risk-taking; of zero-tolerance rather than actual discipline; of don't you dare push boundaries.

How many jungle gyms do you see on today's playgrounds? How many trees (to some extent driven by real estate costs)? Who plays tackle football on today's grade school playgrounds during recess?

I grew up with all of those--including teachers' (both [sic genders] attitudes that trees were for more than just shade--they were for little boys to climb (and for little girls, too, if they were of a mind to try).

Our teachers' attitude of that age was, to coin a phrase, don't do stupid stuff. And doing stupid stuff (within very broad limits) was how we learned what was stupid stuff and even how to do stupid stuff in more effective ways (with most of the truly stupid stuff doing falling off as we figured out the hows and got those squares filled; "you can't do that" taken by us as a goad to show we could, too, do that).

Eric Hines

jaed said...

My elementary school playground was a concrete area with the usual items, backed by a large area of lawn surrounded on three sides by overgrown slopes. Climbing the slopes was forbidden. We stayed strictly on the lawn at first, and any child who went near the slopes would be pulled back by a teacher. Over time, we'd drift closer and closer to the slopes, then start going up them a little, and in a few months the slopes would hold children merrily clambering around, picking wildflowers, etc. And this would go on for months or a year or two.

Then the school would reiterate the rule and go back to teachers pulling kids away from the edges of the lawn.

I think this cycle repeated three or four times during the time I went to that school. It was not an ideal attitude, but it did teach useful lessons about the fecklessness and arbitrariness of authority as well as methods and tactics in overcoming it.

Grim said...

I actually saw a jungle gym the other day. It wasn't at a school, of course, but I was proud of the parents who bought one and put it up in their yard.

Ymar Sakar said...

All flesh will be corrupted.

Grim said...

No: Mark 13:20.

Ymar Sakar said...

Embrace the gospel of "in addition to" instead of the spirit of no ; )

Ymar Sakar said...

The ancient Sanhedrin and Pharisees, had the Old Testament and Law of Moses memorized. Yet they were still amazed at Jesus of Nazareth's teachings around the age of 13, since it was improbable that anyone had not only memorized the Law but also can debate the Law and its meaning at that age. The stiff necked Jews would quote lines from the scriptures, just as you do Grim.

This is the specific passage in question.
1As Jesus was leaving the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher! What massive stones! What magnificent buildings!”

2“Do you see all these great buildings?” replied Jesus. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.”

3As Jesus was sitting on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter, James, John and Andrew asked him privately, 4“Tell us, when will these things happen? And what will be the sign that they are all about to be fulfilled?”
"9“You must be on your guard. You will be handed over to the local councils and flogged in the synagogues. On account of me you will stand before governors and kings as witnesses to them. 10And the gospel must first be preached to all nations. 11Whenever you are arrested and brought to trial, do not worry beforehand about what to say. Just say whatever is given you at the time, for it is not you speaking, but the Holy Spirit."

Context first.

"Pray that this will not take place in winter, 19 because those will be days of distress unequaled from the beginning, when God created the world, until now—and never to be equaled again.

20“If the Lord had not cut short those days, no one would survive. But for the sake of the elect, whom he has chosen, he has shortened them."

"Those days" refers to the days of Noah, an oblique reference. The people at the time knew what he was referencing, but we here today have lost the original works. All flesh was corrupted in the days of Noah, supposedly, and the Lord cut short those days with the Divine Flood, or else no one would have survived the giants and the forces at work then. That, however, doesn't conclusively demonstrate that all flesh will not be corrupted again.

14“When you see ‘the abomination that causes desolation’a standing where itb does not belong—let the reader understand—then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains. 15Let no one on the housetop go down or enter the house to take anything out. 16Let no one in the field go back to get their cloak.

Much of the subtext was a warning to his followers, not to hang around for the desolation of 70 AD in Judea. Obviously because the Romans would crucify all Jews and crucify all Christians. Why? Because Judea rebelled again, due to Maccabbees and false Messiahs.

The disciples of Christ were fractured and split across the entire world, not only because it was their duty to preach the gospel but because they adhered to the warning of their mentor, which was passed down from one generation to the next. Unfortunately, that ended up making the continuation of the primitive Christian church, unfeasible.

Grim said...

Embrace the gospel of "in addition to" instead of the spirit of no ; )

Great advice, but you're the one who started with a universal claim. "All flesh shall..." is logically equivalent to "No flesh shall not...". The function of the 'no' in my sentence is merely to introduce an existential claim as a counter to your universal: "Some flesh shall not...".