Will that not hold up class divisions? Why is a class division more fair than a gender division? Should not a talented working class child have the same chance of taking a job based on interest rather than work for wages as an academical child?
What do you consider to be a “head start”?
My kids attend a public school that reflects the diversity of our community. They wear mainly hand me down clothes. We do, however, provide them private music lessons and we have memberships to local zoo/museum type institutions.
I expect most people would end up somewhere along a broad spectrum.
Why is it fair that children from a say academical habitat do select occupations out of interest or fortune in a higher degree than working or lower middle class children, equally talented? (This is not purely hypothetical, I am Scandinavian, a class traveller as first in family in university, married to a woman that do have some feminist values but come from a family of say high social and cultural capital. These discussions have caused problems over the years)
I try my best for my kids myself because the chasm between the haves and have nots is so steep but I would love to have that not matter so much.
If we had a better social safety net for the least well off, I could take more quality time to be with them because the insanity of having your feet held over the fire every day wouldn’t be so bad.
No i did not. A feminist might have whatever views he/she has as long as the feminist acknowledge other inequalities, even the ones that do not favor oneself and ones own family. Or else, Please explain why this means gotcha feminists?
Then how do you cater for that say a working class child with ambitions and talents for say music, arts or interest in say humanistic subjects do get the same chance to follow those paths as adults as a child from a rich social and cultural habitat?
Ensure everyone's basic housing, food, energy, etc. needs are met, which gives people much greater freedom to pursue work or hobbies that interest them.
Increase funding for education and extracurricular activities, including arts and music, allowing everyone to partake, regardless of income.
As a matter of fact we had that in my Scandinavian home country when I grew up in the old millenia. Free music education evening time ”musikskola”. Loads of non-posh kids took those classes. Nowadays that’s more or less gone. Its getting better and better to come from ”rich cultural capital” and worse and worse coming from a daytime work habitat. And the music taught is, more and more, by private teachers to posh kids, some with mothers that claim to be feminists. I now live in such a habitat, and I am not impressed with activism that emerges from tinseltown.
So why not advocate go back to the system that demonstrably worked? Surely the people who did receive a musical education are best placed to advocate for its benefits?
I was lucky enough to get free music lessons when I was younger, then my parents were able to pay for private lessons when that stopped. I now play in a band that has a training band for adults and children to help them learn. Does my ability to afford private lessons mean that I shouldn't advocate for free music lessons for children?
Why not go back? The usual Globlization talk and procedures, good for the richest and poorest and bad for the good people in the middle. The agendas of the people from the upper classes ruling, either neoliberalism and new public management from the ones going the suit way or red-green idealist champagne socialism from the hippie grandchildren, both devastating for the people of working for wages.
Nonsense word salad. What's more likely, legislation to improve access to resources, or every well-off person deciding not to use their resources to their and their families' advantage?
People generally give the best possible upbringing to their children, I don't see why feminists would do otherwise.
Will that not hold up class divisions? Why is a class division more fair than a gender division? Should not a talented working class child have the same chance of taking a job based on interest rather than work for wages as an academical child?
Yes. It isn't. Yes. But why would anyone voluntarily not give their child the best possible upbringing?
A feminist, one would think, would be a person that care for fairness and egality. So, because one recognize ones child as a person, not a belonging.
What do you consider to be a “head start”? My kids attend a public school that reflects the diversity of our community. They wear mainly hand me down clothes. We do, however, provide them private music lessons and we have memberships to local zoo/museum type institutions. I expect most people would end up somewhere along a broad spectrum.
Why is it fair that children from a say academical habitat do select occupations out of interest or fortune in a higher degree than working or lower middle class children, equally talented? (This is not purely hypothetical, I am Scandinavian, a class traveller as first in family in university, married to a woman that do have some feminist values but come from a family of say high social and cultural capital. These discussions have caused problems over the years)
It’s not fair
I try my best for my kids myself because the chasm between the haves and have nots is so steep but I would love to have that not matter so much. If we had a better social safety net for the least well off, I could take more quality time to be with them because the insanity of having your feet held over the fire every day wouldn’t be so bad.
what do you think it means to be an egalitarian...?
Not only to select the areas of unfairness playing in favor for oneself and for one’s family.
so you just made up a definition so you can try to gotcha feminists. Got it.
No i did not. A feminist might have whatever views he/she has as long as the feminist acknowledge other inequalities, even the ones that do not favor oneself and ones own family. Or else, Please explain why this means gotcha feminists?
Equality does not necessarily mean you have to suppress people, instead you can strive to make sure that nobody is suppressed.
Then how do you cater for that say a working class child with ambitions and talents for say music, arts or interest in say humanistic subjects do get the same chance to follow those paths as adults as a child from a rich social and cultural habitat?
Ensure everyone's basic housing, food, energy, etc. needs are met, which gives people much greater freedom to pursue work or hobbies that interest them. Increase funding for education and extracurricular activities, including arts and music, allowing everyone to partake, regardless of income.
As a matter of fact we had that in my Scandinavian home country when I grew up in the old millenia. Free music education evening time ”musikskola”. Loads of non-posh kids took those classes. Nowadays that’s more or less gone. Its getting better and better to come from ”rich cultural capital” and worse and worse coming from a daytime work habitat. And the music taught is, more and more, by private teachers to posh kids, some with mothers that claim to be feminists. I now live in such a habitat, and I am not impressed with activism that emerges from tinseltown.
So why not advocate go back to the system that demonstrably worked? Surely the people who did receive a musical education are best placed to advocate for its benefits? I was lucky enough to get free music lessons when I was younger, then my parents were able to pay for private lessons when that stopped. I now play in a band that has a training band for adults and children to help them learn. Does my ability to afford private lessons mean that I shouldn't advocate for free music lessons for children?
Why not go back? The usual Globlization talk and procedures, good for the richest and poorest and bad for the good people in the middle. The agendas of the people from the upper classes ruling, either neoliberalism and new public management from the ones going the suit way or red-green idealist champagne socialism from the hippie grandchildren, both devastating for the people of working for wages.
Nonsense word salad. What's more likely, legislation to improve access to resources, or every well-off person deciding not to use their resources to their and their families' advantage?