Foucault taught to Y12. I need some help please

[Thatsinteresting]

I have received an email from school that Y12 will be looking at Foucault's theories on Power. This in itself isn't a huge issue but the video they have been sent to watch does say that he also wrote about sex and sexuality. The teacher always signs off he/him and so I'm wondering if he is subtly trying to introduce queer theory. I know that Foucault was a child rapist who wanted to remove the age of consent but I'm wondering if I should say something to school and if so what?

The fact that he and, underage-unicorn hunting, nazi collaboratoring, Simone de Beauvoir, are massive rather than marginal, tells me there is something very wrong with post-modernistic bullshit philosophy.

Maybe we could go just go back to, I dunno, rational thought?

Honestly, it sounds more like a sectarian apologist than a source.

Foucault did rape young boys - this isn't just Sorman's account, the truth has been know in Tunisia for a very long time.

Foucault did advocate for abolishing the concept of age of consent, the fact that he signed a different open letter than the one which a few people have quoted, but with the exact same purpose, is, of course, immaterial. And it wasn't at all about a concern that age of consent was supposedly to fixed differently according to sexual orientation.

This often-floated defence of pedophile Foucault is just lies, damn lies, disproven off the bat lies. Heather should show some shame. It only reveals something about her, not Focault.

I think this all true, you can’t erase him. He is consequential.

I just disagree with him and don’t like the consequences! 😁

I’d prefer he was taught in context with other ideas as reference points.

Yes I have thanks, and was one myself at one point. We're talking about young people at college doing A-levels, not schoolchildren.

I used to be a teacher, and taught at A -level. I am highly suspicious of this teacher's motive, and suspect it is an activist motive - rather than a purely educational one. 'Critical Thinking' skills would be more appropriate at this stage - and in fact would be a pre-requisite for any further philosophical study.

What does this reveal about Heather Brunskell Evans exactly?

I very much agree about it being an impressionable age.

OP you had better study this yourself very thoroughly.

That she is willing to outright lie, significantly distort the truth, wants to gaslight (radical) feminists and present herself as their victim, while still trying to present herself as one of them?

It's very likely she just doesn't know what she thinks, or should think, but that she still wants protagonism because some feminists don't like her, and will toss up a word salad just to prove her (non-existent) point.

That sounds quite specific. Can you explain what you are talking about?

I already have, it's about what she says in her post? https://savageminds.substack.com/p/was-foucault-a-paedophile

Have you read it?

I'll leave you some random excerpts (not taken out of context, emphasis mine):

"Although childhood is demonstrably a social construct (throughout history different cultures have defined childhood differently), it is also a materially real stage of human development and dependence"

"Moral outrage at “paedophiles” would not have helped all the other peasant girls across France in the 19th century when “paedophile” was first coined as a medical term. And its denomination has not helped the generations of girls since. For example, the working-class girls in our own communities in the 21st century such as those in Rotherham were sexually abused with impunity before the very eyes of the police and social workers"

"Although it might feel like safeguarding, crying “paedophile!” does not get to the root of men’s sexual predation. It places the locus of responsibility onto routing out the “perverts” and the “sick” from our society and it deflects us from recognising the sex of those carrying out the abuse. It throws a veil over the truth, namely that the men who sexually abuse children are often in all other respects “normal blokes.” "

Lol, no, it doesn't, and it's like the racism of low no expectations: nonces are still very much abnormal even among men.

"Empirical evidence of the predation of girls by men is ignored by the Left."

Well, by some in the left and the right, and also the predation upon small boys. Absolutely no surprise there.

"I had hardly begun to speak when an esteemed professor fled the room vociferously deriding me for using the work of a paedophile. She collapsed in the hallway outside, fearing, as she told those who rushed to her aid, that she might be about to have a heart attack.
Inside the conference room, the delegates found me culpable of causing “distress by Foucault.”"

I'm sure it all happened as she described it.

She's a right feminist and a brill thinker.

Heather Brunskell Evans is a brilliant writer.
She's a prominent feminist campaigner.

Heather Brunskell Evans doesn't like paedophiles having influence in school...

I can't see the problem myself.

Are you able to evidence your assertions?

So you weren't there?

I was. That's a fairly accurate report of what happened.

I can't see any problems with the excerpts you've extracted, it's a valid analysis from a radical feminist standpoint.

Wasn't I there for what? The moonlight rape of pre-pubescent boys in a graveyard by Foucault?

The demonstration that childhood is just a social construct, but that it's also material?

That pedophilia is to be expected of all men, and hence that age of consent is of no consequence?

That pedophiles should respectfully be referred to as "MAPs"?

That she doesn't refer to herself as a "Foucault scholar", that post-modernistic / queer theory thought isn't inherently idiotic / misogynistic / homophobic, and that praxis is of no consequence, hence her being far more of a feminist than Julie Bindel, who actually does fcking field work?*

Please clarify.

"I'm sure it all happened as she described it."

As I said, I was there, you clearly were not.

And she does do fucking field work:

"Heather Brunskell-Evans is a social theorist and philosopher who specialises in ethics, medicine, sex and gender. Having been an academic for nearly three decades, she is now also working on national and international political agendas driving the rights of women and girls. She is: A Spokeswoman for FiLiA, a feminist charity; A Member of Management Committee for OBJECT a campaigning organisation, where she also contributes to research on surrogacy; and Co-author of Declaration on Women's Sex Based Rights. "
Source: https://www.spinifexpress.com.au/heather-brunskell-evans

You clearly have an issue with Heather and her work.

So what is the locus of men's sexual predation either on young girls and young boys? Given that childhood is both a social construct and an objective material stage of human development and dependency? Maybe this is where we could cycle back to power in a university class where Foucault was part of the curriculum.

A 6th form lunch time drop in session where Foucault is not on the curriculum is deeply problematic and open to bias. I doubt that a revolutionary socialist who insisted on the moniker of 'comrade' would be granted a lunch time drop in to discuss the continued relevance of Marx with relation to the socialisation of capital and public sector pension funds.

I notice you didn't address any of my points, but I can understand why, it's not really possible to be a random nonce anti-intellectual french corpse-scholar and a feminist. And a radical one at that 😄

I didn't know she even existed until she was mentioned on this thread today.

Her post about Foucault was enlightening enough, though.

"And she does do fucking field work:"

And you proceed to mention no field work, just the kind of meritless positions meritless scholars seek to attain when they've done absolutely nothing for women, because the only woman they care about is herself?

She is very far from unique in that regard, but she should still keep Julie Bindel's name out of her Foucault-scholar's mouth.

i think you’ve misinterpreted the very quotes you’ve used to make your case. She’s arguing that we need to expose how normalised paedophilia is, not that because it is widespread it should be normalised and to scrap the age of consent. Yes, childhood is material and also socially constructed. It’s why we routinely sent children out to work during the Industrial Revolution and before, and why we now, where western privilege allows, don’t expect them to work until 18 plus. We’ve a different social construction of what the developmental
stage of childhood should consist of.

I mean, “childhood as a social construct” is very well represented on this thread. This entire thread is about whether or not it’s concerning to teach a certain philosopher to 16/17 year olds-who we, as a society, have decided are “children-, when that exact same philosopher is taught with virtually no scaffolding, let alone safeguarding, to 18 year olds because we have decided that they’re “adults”. This is despite there being no real physical or mental difference between these two groups of people, just an arbitrary legal line…

<bows>

I’d furnish her with a couple of Foucault memes, just so she’s inoculated if the teacher does turn out to be messianic.

I’m forever having to heap derision on our children’s teachers and their daft ideas. It’s a complete inversion of how things ought to be, but until the activism fad finally burns itself out it feels like the best option.

I know nothing about HB-E except this piece. I have no interest in defending her or her attitude to Foucault, but I'm puzzled by the extracts you've highlighted here, sillything.

What do you think is wrong with them?
She says that childhood is different in different times/societies, which is true, isn't it? but she says that it is also materially true: children ARE children, regardless of the society they live in. Your problem with that?

She says that most men who abuse children are 'normal blokes', not card-carrying 'paedophiles'. The level of sexual abuse of children, and the huge number of men accessing child sexual abuse images online supports this.
Abusers are the bloke next door, the nice neighbour, the community leader, the husband and father of a family. They don't show up on the radar as paedophiles or nonces, they are just 'normal blokes' who abuse children. What's wrong with stating that?

I see that you don't have a high opinion of HB-E and you may be right, but you've highlighted things that seem to be not only reasonable but perfectly valid and widely accepted as factual.

High drama at a conference is something else!

Which subject is this being studied in?

I am not inclined to see not interacting much with the text as a good thing. Who needs some idiot young teachers views on Foucault?

I don't really understand why anyone would start teaching real philosophy to young people with a complex 20th century figure?

Why not start with the pre-Socratics? Something more foundational?