Friday, March 12, 2010
Royals: a uniquely precious breed
This New York Times story inadvertently highlights a great deal of what's wrong with monarchies.
The essence of the story, you'll see, is that an eight-year-old girl (let's call her Aiko) claims to have been bullied at an upper-class school, which she is now hesitant to attend. A fairly run-of-the-mill situation, but one that is also unacceptable, and needs to be addressed by school authorities, and possibly parents and other government authorities where necessary.
As one pursues the story further, it is suggested that the "bullying" may be little more than a school "allow[ing] students to run, yell in class and tussle on the playground", or perhaps even that Aiko "was scared after two boys nearly collided with her by accident as they rushed down the hallway to get lunch."
In any case something happened, and it's somewhere in between moderate bullying, and 'slightly-overwrought daughter of slightly-overwrought mother got scared by running boys'.
And it happened in Japan.
Not, you'd suspect, something that needs to be picked up by the NYT half a world away.
But because the eight-year-old in question is "Her Highness Princess Aiko" the rules are different. Why? Well, because, um, she's the daughter of a guy who will probably inherit "the Chrysanthemum Throne" from his father at some point. Not that Aiko herself can, of course, what with being female and all.
Objectively, she's no more nor less interesting than any other eight-year-old Japanese kid. She hasn't saved the whales, or rescued puppies from a burning petrol tanker. She appears to have done nothing remarkable, and neither has her father.
She's newsworthy because she happened to be born into an aristocratic family that used to wield political power, but are now figureheads. In other words, she's not newsworthy at all. She's a kid. Experiencing normal kid problems.
Closer to home, Will Wales-Windsor is a late-20s trainee helicopter pilot from London. If not for an accident of birth, he'd be paying for his own flights to New Zealand, carrying his possessions in his own backpack, and buying his own beers (not nicking John Key's).
The core problem with the monarchy is it makes otherwise normal, reasonably intelligent people turn into fawning idiots, who see the unremarkable offspring of aristocrats as some uniquely precious breed of human, who must be spared life's normal annoyances at all costs, and merit obsequious, scraping behaviour from all who meet them, even those with a democratic mandate to lead, and/or a personal history of actual achievements.
The essence of the story, you'll see, is that an eight-year-old girl (let's call her Aiko) claims to have been bullied at an upper-class school, which she is now hesitant to attend. A fairly run-of-the-mill situation, but one that is also unacceptable, and needs to be addressed by school authorities, and possibly parents and other government authorities where necessary.
As one pursues the story further, it is suggested that the "bullying" may be little more than a school "allow[ing] students to run, yell in class and tussle on the playground", or perhaps even that Aiko "was scared after two boys nearly collided with her by accident as they rushed down the hallway to get lunch."
In any case something happened, and it's somewhere in between moderate bullying, and 'slightly-overwrought daughter of slightly-overwrought mother got scared by running boys'.
And it happened in Japan.
Not, you'd suspect, something that needs to be picked up by the NYT half a world away.
But because the eight-year-old in question is "Her Highness Princess Aiko" the rules are different. Why? Well, because, um, she's the daughter of a guy who will probably inherit "the Chrysanthemum Throne" from his father at some point. Not that Aiko herself can, of course, what with being female and all.
Objectively, she's no more nor less interesting than any other eight-year-old Japanese kid. She hasn't saved the whales, or rescued puppies from a burning petrol tanker. She appears to have done nothing remarkable, and neither has her father.
She's newsworthy because she happened to be born into an aristocratic family that used to wield political power, but are now figureheads. In other words, she's not newsworthy at all. She's a kid. Experiencing normal kid problems.
Closer to home, Will Wales-Windsor is a late-20s trainee helicopter pilot from London. If not for an accident of birth, he'd be paying for his own flights to New Zealand, carrying his possessions in his own backpack, and buying his own beers (not nicking John Key's).
The core problem with the monarchy is it makes otherwise normal, reasonably intelligent people turn into fawning idiots, who see the unremarkable offspring of aristocrats as some uniquely precious breed of human, who must be spared life's normal annoyances at all costs, and merit obsequious, scraping behaviour from all who meet them, even those with a democratic mandate to lead, and/or a personal history of actual achievements.
Labels: japan, obsequious, republic, schools, william wales windsor
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Tired old story for a tired old media
I really do tire of media-driven advocacy of single-sex education, even within co-educational schools. i.e., the notion that "both girls and boys will flourish in environments tailored to their gender-specific requirements."
First, when I looked into the issue a few years back, I found that 'evidence' (of the sort cited, or rather uncritically promoted, in the Herald story linked to above) is rather ambiguous, with some studies pointing one way, and others, well, the other.
Second, what we're really talking about here is single-gender education (in the sense of gender being a set of social expectations and attitudes built up around biological difference), and don't guys like the visiting Dr Sax just love to jump on crude gender stereotypes:
Yes, such Neanderthal attitudes could only stem from biologically-grounded psychological differences ... nothing to do with socially ingrained gender roles and expectations at all. Nothing to see here, move along.
Is anyone else even faintly skeptical of claims such as "Girls learn much better with 3000-kelvin bulbs (warm light) while boys learn much better with 4000-K bulbs (cool light)." In other news, boys like slugs and snails, while girls prefer sugar and spice. It's ingrained, y'know.
3. What about the value of, you know, learning to live and learn side-by-side with people of a different sex and gender? What about the positive aspects of that interaction - both in the short-term, and in terms of being a decent human being?
4. My favourite objection. Why stop at gender? If it is legitimate to divide children on one social and biological axis of difference, why stop there? How about seeing if children do better in "same race" (sic) classrooms. We all know that "Asian kids" are predisposed to be good at maths and classical music. Polynesian kids mature faster, and should be allowed to use their natural physicality on the sports field without fear of crushing skinny whites and Asians. White kids don't need to be held back by Asians and Polynesians whose first language isn't English.
Separate but equal, I say.
First, when I looked into the issue a few years back, I found that 'evidence' (of the sort cited, or rather uncritically promoted, in the Herald story linked to above) is rather ambiguous, with some studies pointing one way, and others, well, the other.
Second, what we're really talking about here is single-gender education (in the sense of gender being a set of social expectations and attitudes built up around biological difference), and don't guys like the visiting Dr Sax just love to jump on crude gender stereotypes:
The areas of the brain associated with language and fine motor skills mature about six years earlier in girls than boys. The areas of the brain associated with maths and geometry mature about four years earlier in boys than girls. This finding may help explain why some girls find maths "hard", he says, while some boys think poetry is for "sissies".
Yes, such Neanderthal attitudes could only stem from biologically-grounded psychological differences ... nothing to do with socially ingrained gender roles and expectations at all. Nothing to see here, move along.
Is anyone else even faintly skeptical of claims such as "Girls learn much better with 3000-kelvin bulbs (warm light) while boys learn much better with 4000-K bulbs (cool light)." In other news, boys like slugs and snails, while girls prefer sugar and spice. It's ingrained, y'know.
3. What about the value of, you know, learning to live and learn side-by-side with people of a different sex and gender? What about the positive aspects of that interaction - both in the short-term, and in terms of being a decent human being?
4. My favourite objection. Why stop at gender? If it is legitimate to divide children on one social and biological axis of difference, why stop there? How about seeing if children do better in "same race" (sic) classrooms. We all know that "Asian kids" are predisposed to be good at maths and classical music. Polynesian kids mature faster, and should be allowed to use their natural physicality on the sports field without fear of crushing skinny whites and Asians. White kids don't need to be held back by Asians and Polynesians whose first language isn't English.
Separate but equal, I say.
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Good grief, New Zealand
The long-awaited Ikea store (which would be an excellent addition to the retail landscape, especially in the currently over-priced furniture department) can't go to Mount Wellington because it might ... um, generate traffic. No shit. After it took me 50 minutes to get to work this morning, instead of the 20 minutes I was enjoying until last week, I suggest the Environment Court refuse resource consent for schools.
Apparently there were just two windows to pick-up pre-paid tickets at Eden Park for the T-20. The organizers of the event blame people not turning up early enough and being unfamiliar with the "intricacies" of Eden Park. Which rather disregards the idea that people generally, um, work on weekdays. Y'know that thing you do until at least 5pm, and quite often 6? As one disgruntled fan put it, "Do they assume that as they already have our money we will accept this?" Yes, that's exactly what they expect.
Right-wing talking point of the week is that Clark was cowardly in not attending all the events at Waitangi while Key looked prime ministerial. Audrey Young notes that previous visits have seen the PM and Labour MPs subjected to (1) accusations of treason, and associated death threats; (2) being shouted down by the usual suspect; (3)jostled by aggressive assholes; (4) perhaps most disgustingly, sprayed with urine. In the face. And add to that (5) Don Brash being pelted with mud, to which he replied rather wittily, "nice shot", but to which he would have been perfectly entitled to reply: "fuck off you little fucking c8nt".
If I'd had similar experiences in a place I wouldn't set foot in it. Quite why those responsible for law and order in New Zealand have let events like that unfold in the past is beyond me.
And for a little Darthwatch, this week he blames primary teachers for not "sorting out the little shits early enough" (although he doesn't deem to provide us with his thoughts on how this might be done); expresses support for more "real men" (read: heterosexuals) in primary school teaching; raises the old right-wing bugbear of performance-based pay for teachers (without suggesting even one criteria by which said performance might be measured); bashes teachers' unions; and prattles on about the government-in-waiting.
Yawn.
Apparently there were just two windows to pick-up pre-paid tickets at Eden Park for the T-20. The organizers of the event blame people not turning up early enough and being unfamiliar with the "intricacies" of Eden Park. Which rather disregards the idea that people generally, um, work on weekdays. Y'know that thing you do until at least 5pm, and quite often 6? As one disgruntled fan put it, "Do they assume that as they already have our money we will accept this?" Yes, that's exactly what they expect.
Right-wing talking point of the week is that Clark was cowardly in not attending all the events at Waitangi while Key looked prime ministerial. Audrey Young notes that previous visits have seen the PM and Labour MPs subjected to (1) accusations of treason, and associated death threats; (2) being shouted down by the usual suspect; (3)jostled by aggressive assholes; (4) perhaps most disgustingly, sprayed with urine. In the face. And add to that (5) Don Brash being pelted with mud, to which he replied rather wittily, "nice shot", but to which he would have been perfectly entitled to reply: "fuck off you little fucking c8nt".
If I'd had similar experiences in a place I wouldn't set foot in it. Quite why those responsible for law and order in New Zealand have let events like that unfold in the past is beyond me.
And for a little Darthwatch, this week he blames primary teachers for not "sorting out the little shits early enough" (although he doesn't deem to provide us with his thoughts on how this might be done); expresses support for more "real men" (read: heterosexuals) in primary school teaching; raises the old right-wing bugbear of performance-based pay for teachers (without suggesting even one criteria by which said performance might be measured); bashes teachers' unions; and prattles on about the government-in-waiting.
Yawn.
Labels: darth george, schools, travel, waitangi
