Can someone explain to me in simple terms. USA elections

[ihatethecold]

What are the main differences between Obama and romney?
Is Obama like labour and Romney like very right conservative?

Why does Romney say he will get rid of the healthcare bill that Obama brought in.

Did it not work?
why wouldn't you want people without insurance to access healthcare ?
Thanks

Math unfortunately yes, the sort of parents sometimes would hold a daughter to a higher standard. I cannot deny this and don't agree with it, but it is still a disconnect between the parents' views and what the school is using (moral framework for SRE only mentioned "respect" and "responsibility") They would normally want their children of both sexes to abstain, but be harsher on a girl for not doing so because it is seen as less "natural" and so less forgivable.

I mentioned girls because the school I was asking you about to gauge how far away your position was from the parental-rights view was an all-girls' school in England. Nothing sinister there. If I had heard of a boys' school principal pulling that stunt I would be railing at him/her, not being a misogynist myself.

'or are you going to defend a teacher with no medical role acting as "an experienced adult" for pupils to unload their intimate secrets on without parents having a hope of finding out?'

Yes, because there is always more to it than just the sex life of the teenage girl. Girls who settle for sex are unhappy, have nothing much going for them, are not 'feeling the love' at home and an approach to a teacher is often a cry for help that a teacher should not ignore.

'Intimate secrets' is an incredibly prurient term btw.

Either your family culture is robust enough to survive no matter what your environment or it deserves to bite the dust.

Society does not have to pander to the sensibilities of the parents you have in mind any more than it has to pander to the wishes of parents whose tradition it is to mutilate the genitals of their daughters. Parents who are so disconnected from modern realities in the society they live in should not send their daughters to school, like the Irish Travellers I mentioned earlier.

Boys' schools no matter what foot they dig with do not judge boys for their sex lives or seek to keep tabs on them, or report to their parents. That is the special province of schools where girls are 'educated'.

OK, you don't believe that people of age X have a right to privacy and confidentiality.

I do.

An "end run" would allow them to be unconcerned about their parents' reaction, boost their defiance of family values and cause them to not face opprobrium from their extended family and community, thus allowing them to avoid the social support pulling them toward abstinence.

What is their home life like? Frequently not good. Does this override parental rights to know, in the absence of strong belief that abuse is going on?

And secrets about sex or relationships ARE "intimate"... the very concept implies a reverence for human dignity which is the opposite of prurient. Prurience sees little intimate or private about sex and splashes it on kiss-and-tell stories, reality shows and billboards.

I think this tangential discussion should probably stop here though. So people can get back onto the election, and I'll contribute if I feel there is something of relevance (or to challenge any egregious lies by the Obama camp.)

Piglet=- I do believe in confidentiality. See post in direct response to yours.

Sounds like happy girls, happy in their families, lots of love all round.

Teachers' and schools' first responsibility is to their students. Can you see a situation where a phone call to snitch on a girl could result in that girl being murdered?

Extro

I did read your post.

You do not believe they have a right to privacy and confidentiality.

"snitch"? Report, surely? Snitch is something immature kids or criminals do on each other to avoid getting into trouble themselves. Ironically, when I was at school a few boys got into trouble for saying "stop snitching" (a common saying in the 20-25 years since hip-hop culture became mainstream here) to justify not reporting suspected child abuse. The issue arose when a group of older kids were picked one summer to mentor the new year 7s in the September and told to report any concerns to a specific staff member.

And that's a classic safeguarding argument. You are motivated by child-protection concerns here. There is nothing wrong with child protection of course and by its nature it must sometimes usurp parental control over the child at risk, but I think that people should use their judgment instead of a wide policy of being "approachable" and never informing parents. I know of Shafilea Ahmed and numerous other teenagers killed for the sake of "honour" so do not go into this naively. Teachers should be smart enough to know when a girl/boy is at risk and when they just don't want parents to know what they are up to.

PigletJohn

I made it clear that I do believe in confidentiality so why obfuscate?

I was unaware that parents needed further rights? I also don't think I am entitled to know everything about my DC - I assume that as they grow they will keep more and more information about their private lives... well, private.

No one can legislate you a good and open relationship with your kids. If your child wants to keep sex a secret from you, and the kids know that any school staff they tell are legally obligated to blab to you, then who do you imagine they will talk to?

Anyway isn't this precisely the sort of intimate government-legal intervention in family life that the right generally opposes? The government could always waterboard a 15-year-old who refuses to hand over her Facebook password or the key to her diary. Then you'd know all.

I certainly don't think parents are entitled to know everything either... just this issue is one which is so critical to the moral framework of conservative families and very important all round, so it strikes me as an overreach for the school to provide secrecy without very good reason (risk of significant harm)

And I'm not right wing, I'm centre, as I said. Family life not being intruded on by the government is things like not forcing explicit sex ed and making sure faith schools stay legal and free.

So by govenment not interfering in family life, what you actually mean is that the government should intervene to force children back into the family's moral framework? Even if the child wants actively seeks outside influence.

Govenment-supported faith schools means the government is now interfering in faith. Why should the government grant-maintain a faith? Surely they should simply keep faith out of school and make sure that faith institutions (churches, mosques) can operate freely and without interference? Even tax-free.

Because faith matters enough for many people that they would like it to be part of their child's daily life at school. But let's leave that one alone. It's complicated and nothing to do with an election in a country where faith schools are already banned from state funding by Constitution.

Apart from Piglet's puzzling direct contradiction to what I said upon asking me a question, which I hope to see resolved somehow, I'm out for now on anything that does not relate to the election. Sorry for the derailment if anyone was perplexed at why school policy was being debated for two pages of a US 2012 election thread...

I think it sort of depends on what age X is, personally...if my 15 year old is getting condoms, etc, that's one thing, if my nine year old is I'd like to know what the hell for!

What if FGM is part of family life? Can the government intrude on that? How about arranged marriages of teenagers who have not met their spouse? How about requiring Traveller children to attend school and do at least GCSEs?

The government maintains a wide range of social services without which many British families would be starving and homeless. Should that all stop?

The government also claims an interest in protecting children from dangers within the family and has powers to remove children from the home and terminate parental rights. Do you think that should be ended?

There was a very sad case here in Canada where a father, brother and mother killed three of their daughters and the father's first wife simply because they had decided that the girls were not living the right sort of life (ie they had picked up some Western values, were showing some signs of independence and shock horror the elder two had boyfriends).

All three girls had tried to tell authorities that they were very scared but unfortunately they weren't taken seriously enough/didn't quite have the courage to run. I would have wished that their school had the sort of courageous deputy principle that Extrospektiv wishes to denigrate. They absolutely needed support from outside of their home.

They certainly did face 'opprobrium from their extended family' I am sure that Extrospektiv would agree that their end was tragic, however I do wonder if she would think that the tragedy was fundamentally that they veered away from the cultural and religious expectations of their family.

Meanwhile the Democratic convention is later this week.

"There is nothing wrong with child protection of course and by its nature it must sometimes usurp parental control over the child at risk,"

-From my last post math WRT forced marriage, FGM and Travellers denying their children an education. All harmful, abusive, unlawful acts unlike teaching your child to abstain from sex.

"The government maintains a wide range of social services without which many British families would be starving and homeless. Should that all stop?
The government also claims an interest in protecting children from dangers within the family and has powers to remove children from the home and terminate parental rights. Do you think that should be ended?"

Okay, let's defund SureStart, cut off Child Benefit and tax credits, knock down all social housing, keep minors off the NHS in case parents don't agree with them getting state funded healthcare, shut down children's centres, no state money to the NSPCC (who needs protection?), forbid computers in school and youth facility as some Amish-like cult thinks technology corrupts mankind, close down residential units for troubled teenagers and let them sleep on the streets, abandon school attendance services because parents have a right to make them work around the house all day especially if they're girls, stop the Common Assessment Framework as sharing information about children at risk breaches their privacy, ban anti-bullying programmes in case some families think bullying is a good way of toughening people up, repeal the Children Acts, abolish section 47 inquiries (far too intrusive!), get rid of all laws around adoption, and make sure child abusers get to keep their children.

Really ? How could you even ask me what I think? What next, should terrorism and bank robbery be legalised? Should we bring back slavery and set up a public execution zone for the slaves who won't work and follow the rules?

Oh Extro, you are funny.

Apart from Piglet's puzzling direct contradiction to what I said upon asking me a question,...

I ask you if they have a right to privacy and confidentiality, and your rambing evasive reply begins "confidentiality" is something I believe in to an extent but not when..."

You say that "to an extent" you don't object to confidentiality except that it should not apply when it's about something you don't think should be confidential. So you clearly say that you do not believe it is a right, it is a privilege to be granted on certain occasions subject to your approval.

That is not the same as it being a right.

So you do not believe people have a right to privacy and confidentiality.

holy shit I'm glad the state I vote in is moderate

'From my last post math WRT forced marriage, FGM and Travellers denying their children an education. All harmful, abusive, unlawful acts unlike teaching your child to abstain from sex.'

How is the Traveller custom harmful? Traveller girls do not work outside the home in the main because they never have to. They are supported by their husbands and extended families play a large part in childcare. They marry young after a short courtship and in some respects that tradition seems to be akin to what you described earlier - no sex before marriage, no career and cohabitation until the late 20s or early 30s ... what's not to love there?

In spite of the fact that there is one law for all (that has come into existence as a result of democratically expressed general consensus) and the fact that having one law for all this is a fundamental part of a civil society you are asking principals to use their discretion (and you object strongly to individual discretion uinless the individual concerned agrees 100% with you). What there is right now is a system that acknowledges the primacy of western culture and the western idea about the rights of individuals as opposed to 'the family'. Because this is the West after all.

Math- I believe in the primacy of Western culture and national law over extremist religious traditions that would conflict with these as well. I once wrote that I found it wrong the way Ray Honeyford was harassed out of his job as a headteacher in Bradford in the mid-80s, when he was promoting making sure that Muslim girls of Pakistani heritage go to school until they are 16 and are not kept off from (pre-)puberty by their fundamentalist fathers. The same would apply to Travellers, everyone deserves an equal chance at completing their basic education irrespective of what background they are from if they live in a country that supposedly guarantees to provide children with this.

I support people marrying early if they find it too difficult to abstain from sex. I don't support women being denied the opportunity to work outside the home (earlier on this thread I called myself "pro-life feminist" so could hardly be against women in this way.)

RE boys' schools. If a pupil at a respectable boys' school started trying to divulge their sexual experiences to a teacher, I expect they'd i)stop them by saying they were not interested/ inappropriate talk/ not my problem etc. and ii)at least consider telling the parents. I don't see schools as institutionally sexist in the way you do, at least on this. It's certain parents who would be more concerned about their daughters than their sons.

"One law for all": there is no law passed in the English Parliament or anywhere else I know of requiring schools to act as super-discreet confidantes for pupils who are sexually impure. Nor is it a "fundamental part of civil society" for parents to be kept out of the loop.

"If a pupil at a respectable boys' school started trying to divulge their ...."

....concerns which might relate to something that had happened, and might be of a sexual nature...

what? you want the teacher to tell them to shut up and piss off?

used to be popular especially among adherents of a well-known religious organisation, very effective at keeping things swept under the carpet.

We know better now.

No use telling them to speak to the parents if it's something happening within the family (which it most often is).