The Kiss
In the vast and wonderfully rich vaults of the ABC’s archives there would be, I’m quite certain, a little news item shown on the telly just a few years back. It’s gorgeously thought provoking and it’s about a kiss.
The camera is in the classroom of a High School, going from student to student as they are anxiously peering into the glowing screens of their computers. Their teacher is there also, and she is just as excited as they are. All are waiting for their VCE results. Excitement all around. Bubbles and squeaks are heard and we, on our sofas at home empathise fully and feel bubbly and squeaky along with them. I, a retired teacher (is there such a thing?) also feel that bubble and squeak and know what it’s all about. I recognise the atmosphere of that classroom well. It is exhilarating and bursting with anticipation an atmosphere I’ve felt many, many times.
Suddenly, a young boy sees his results on the screen and screams with unfettered joy. Behind him stands his teacher. Quite spontaneously, she turns to him and gives him a kiss on the cheek, commonly referred to as a “peck.” She pecked no other cheek in that classroom, at least not while the cameras were rolling. It was absolutely nothing more than a motherly, a friendly, a very natural reaction from a proud teacher to her student, for whom she would have given her best that year to make sure he had reached his best potential in the subject she taught and he did, paying her back for her efforts. I know exactly how she must have felt when she saw the boy’s results. I would have felt exactly the same way. The young man received the kiss – yes, the peck – as if it was indeed, his own mum or his best friend who had delivered it on his cheek.
Not a single murmur or post in the social media was made about it being an inappropriate act, or an immoral one or one that was shamefully unprofessional or anything of this nature. The public, quite rightly recognised the deed for what it was and accepted it. No public outrage the likes of which we have been seeing the last few months. No observations about “power differential” or “workplace ethics,” or anything of the sort.
It was a kiss of excitement, an excitement that was well earned after a year’s hard work. A very much, valid excitement. I saw nothing, absolutely nothing untoward about that kiss.
I am a father as well as a teacher and know what it is to raise children, to love them to death and to be with them when they succeed in whatever it is they want to succeed and with them when they struggle with loss. The emotion is very near uncontrollably heart bursting, and nor should it be anything else. Win or lose, it is a team effort, and it is as intense as that during a footy game when the players rush to hug each other whenever one of them scores a goal or deprives the opponent of kicking one.
A teacher is not too unlike a parent when it comes to the love and the care involved. Not too unlike at all.
Nothing unnatural. Nothing to make one jab the air with a condemnatory finger. Nothing to scorn. Nothing to get angry about.
But had that teacher been me, a man, who had felt those very same feelings with his students -the joyful excitement when they won, the sad and sympathetic heart when they had to struggle against harsh realities – had that teacher been me, kissing that boy or – Zeus fore-fend, a girl ! – the story, I dare suggest with quite some certainly, would have had a different ending.
But why?
The federal Court judge, Justice Michael Wigney gives us a strong clue:
“I wouldn’t say ‘yummy’ or ‘scrumptious’ to anybody in my workplace but I’m a boring lawyer, and Mr Rush is an actor in a theatrical workplace where people use florid language,” he said and continued with “Obviously some people see tremendous significance but I have to say depending on the context I am grappling with it.”
Ah, the context!
This article, let me say with the greatest haste I can muster, is not about Mr Rush and what he is facing at the moment. It is not about his alleged actions and nor do I have the slightest wish to enter into any courtroom currently in process. This article is about something else. It’s about examining deeds, not people.
Examining people needs a very careful, a very thorough look at them, a look not unlike one presenting itself to a surgeon before an operation, nor unlike one presenting itself to a judge in a court of justice; and I’m neither a surgeon in surgery nor a judge in a court of justice.
But I am a retired teacher (is there such a thing?) and I have learnt of the crucial need to be thorough and of the need to judge the deed and not the person.
The judgement of people requires entering into hearts and brains and these are the best fortressed organs in our bodies. Fortressed better than the “topless towers of Ilium,” that protected Troy, walls that took ten years for the Greeks to bring down (as Christopher Marlowe put it).
And so, I agree with the judge: The context of the deed is highly, if not vitally important; the whodoneit is not.
When Euripides was writing his Medea in 431 BC, he was not describing the mind of a murderer, he was sending a message to the politicians of the day, politicians, like the great demagogue Pericles who had not long before implemented a law that said that only the children whose parents are both Athenian may be considered to be full Athenian citizens.
All other children are “barbarians” (effectively foreigners) even if they were born in Athens. Medea was born in the distant land of Colchis and was therefore a barbarian even though she was married to Jason, a local. (The play is set in Corinth).
The ancient Greek stage (5th c.BC) was a classroom, or even a pulpit. More of a pulpit for Aeschylus and Sophocles but more of a classroom for Euripides and Euripides was using the myth of Medea, merely as a platform to teach about the consequences of Pericles’ law. Mothers would be expelled and in doing so they’d kill their children to save them from the horrors of living in a land of xenophobes.
Euripides was talking about the importance of the context of a deed. Its birth, its reason, its cause. This is probably one of the reasons why the play came last in that year’s competitions.
The context is just as connected and as important to the deed as are the heart and the mind to a living body. To examine it, to judge it, to understand it one needs to look at its context, at its heart. This is not to say that the context will automatically excuse the deed but it is important for us to include it so as to have a full understanding of that deed. Understanding the deed is understanding the human and, as humans, that is our primary assignment, an assignment that written at the forecourt of the temple of Apollo at Delphi over two-and-a-half millennia ago and turned into a common aphorism by a whole lot of philosophers, including Plato and Socrates.
There is no deed that is naked of context. Not an excuse but a context.
Whether one says ‘yummy’ or ‘scrumptious’ or gives a peck on someone’s cheek depends on the context.
And I come to wonder what would happen in the smoggy atmosphere of the “social media” if the ABC showed that item again – just to agitate our morals up a bit, see what comes to the surface.
Is a kiss just a kiss, a sigh just a sigh, a peck just a peck?
My Grandchildren!
I wish you all the merriest of Xmases, the happiest of 2019 (Good Loooord, is that the time?) and the jolliest of them all for the many years that shall follow.
52 comments
Login here Register here-
Joseph Carli -
nonsibicunctis -
Joseph Carli -
DrakeN -
helvityni -
Diannaart -
Keitha Granville -
Shaun Newman
-
helvityni -
Diannaart -
Diannaart -
helvityni -
Joseph Carli -
Kaye Lee -
helvityni -
Joseph Carli -
Joseph Carli -
Diannaart -
Kaye Lee -
Longfulan -
Diannaart -
Diannaart -
Kaye Lee -
Diannaart -
Joseph Carli -
Diannaart -
Kaye Lee -
Joseph Carli -
Kaye Lee -
Joseph Carli -
Diannaart -
nonsibicunctis -
nonsibicunctis -
Kaye Lee -
Diannaart -
Kyran -
Kaye Lee -
Kaye Lee -
Diannaart -
Kyran -
Joseph Carli -
Diannaart -
Kaye Lee -
helvityni -
Matters Not -
Matters Not -
nonsibicunctis -
helvityni -
MattersNot -
MattersNot -
George Theodoridis -
Kaye Lee
Return to home pageNice piece, George..smooth as a silken veil drawn over a lady’s naked shoulder…But how does one respond to your query?…are you asking or are you “questioning”?…
To myself, any relationship with a woman must be accompanied with a sense of vulnerability..either from oneself, wondering whether one’s advances will be rejected or in the eyes or mannerisms of the lady whether she is allowing too much leeway for the man to presume…either way, there has to be a touch of vulnerability to give the “context” a ceratin amount of thrill…
What is desire without a certain amount of lust and what is lust without a certain amount of mystery and what is mystery without the exotic!?
Yes…when is a kiss just a kiss?..or when is a caress just that human touch?
Tell you what..let’s leave it to social media to be the judge…they are SO good at it!
Of course context is important when judging the merits or otherwise of any action. Equally, a single occurrence of a certain behaviour will rarely, if ever, provide information sufficient to facilitate anything approaching a sound and holistic assessment of a person’s character.
The context will include the before and after of the behaviour, the motivation for it and the degree of intention with which it was made as well as what effect that behaviour has on those who are direct recipients of it and those who witness it.
I well understand your suggestion of a distinction being made in regard to the ‘peck’ of a kiss made by the female teacher on a young boy’s cheek, as opposed to it having been a male teacher’s behaviour towards a young girl of similar age and in a similar setting and context.
The very different reaction of so many to a male teacher behaving that way is in no small way a contributing factor to there being very few, comparatively, male early-childhood or junior primary school teachers.
The reality is that it is men who are the predominant predators in sexual actions and have always been so because biologically they are designed to impregnate and because throughout history they have rarely been without the role of protector, provider & dominant character in the household, the tribe, the society, the race.
Socialisation being what it is, i.e. a form of instilling the traits and mores of a particular culture and ensuring their continuity, and the actual role of schools being that of socialisation, rather than ‘education’, it is not surprising that they are ‘dangerous’ places for any person who behaves outside of what are considered appropriate social norms.
The inequity of the judgments likely to be made in a case such as you quoted, if the genders were reversed, is thus understandable, even though still unfair.
This is a major quandary in what purports to be a free and fair society. Individuals are so commonly characterised by what is not a characteristic action but a ‘one-off’ resulting from a particular context, and whole groups of individuals are characterised by the behaviour of a small minority or even just one of them.
So, the female spread folklore notion that ‘all men are fixated on their penis’ or ‘all men think about is sex’ come to have an undeserved credibility in a civilised society and the apportioning of trust becomes skewed or warped. Again, that is understandable, for who would deliberately deliver their child into the hands of those most likely to prey on them?
Of course, as with so many issues, understanding it does not necessarily provide a solution.
With the evolution of technology our world has continually changed and, not least, in the roles needed within it and the ability of either gender to successfully accomplish what were previously roles almost exclusively in the male domain. This has happened at the micro level within families and at the macro level, across society generally. The strength of a feminist agenda has grown along with this evolution and few would doubt that such is a good thing. However, perhaps a negative (and hopefully a temporary one) is that this change has created a much more complex set of relationships with which individuals and society must deal.
Some may agree with a judge that excuses inappropriate language or sexual innuendo and touching as being acceptable on the basis that it was allegedly committed by an actor and in a theatrical setting but they would be wrong to do so, just as the judge was wrong to make such a judgement, let alone utter it out loud.
Yes, we must take context into account but that imbues us with an obligation to take into account the total context, not only one part of it, as this judge has done. If society judges this sort of behaviour as inappropriate, how is it that actors and their industry are somehow exempt from that moral consensus?
As I mentioned much earlier, males are almost constantly sexually interested and their desire can be ignited by all manner of sights, actions or interactions that have no sexual connotations in themselves or the mind of a potential victim. A major condition of civilised humanity is that individually and collectively we can control our impulses or desires and accept that unless we respect one another and our collective ethical and moral ethos, we are not civilised and become lesser animals. Without that self-control, anything goes.
Both the judge and the teacher stepped over that line of recognition of what society considers acceptable. A teacher, despite acting in loco parentis, does not become the parent but simply takes on a legal responsibility for their welfare during a particular time. They should not take on the familiarity of a parent, no matter how caring or positively motivated they may be. The contexts to which you refer need certainly to be taken into account but as a whole. Other students were present when that teacher behaved as she did and presumably there were many others present in court when the judge said what he did. Their roles are both respected ones that others will often consider for guidance. They are models. They have, because of that I suggest, an even greater obligation to ensure self-control than do the rest of us in more insignificant roles.
And best wishes for you too, George..:
A Little Bit of Greek Wisdom!
We rise, good company these Greeks!
And the laughter…what, ho!
And the coffee…; syrup of Arabia.
A novelty to me, custom to these.
We rise, and matter of course, (or custom?)
Did I take my cup to the servery,
While, without thought they left theirs table’d.
“Ah, so!” She cried in mock accusation…
Her supple white arm lifted thus,pointing,
Her other hip’d, tea-towel clutched.
“You can see which are the Greeks!
Their dishes left for me to clear!”
They halted, inquiring, eyebrows raised.
For a moment, siding with the woman,
Seeking to appease, seeking feminine approval,
I thought to challenge them; “Clear the table fellows!”
But experience held my tongue, instead I spoke thus:
“Raise me not above my equals, my Lady,
With such visible flattery, lest…outside, beyond thine eyes,
In vexation they should smote me to the ground”.
She turned to me her eyes,
Greek eyes, Deep eyes, dark Greek eyes.
That hold the secret of the Trojan wars.
And whispered thus:
“I would come to help thee”.
Oh! the eyes, the voice, the breathless whisper;
The three together promised delight,
Men have risked all for such promises,
Where now; Troy? where Marc Antony? and Eden’s garden?
For the moment I paused, pondered,
To consider the foibles human;
But Ahh..damm!
Too old am I now to doubt it thus:
The tyrants always walk with the women.
(The poet, only,.. is left in the dust.).
@ nonsibicunctus: “Both the judge and the teacher stepped over that line of recognition of what society considers acceptable.”
If that is the way that ‘society’ considers such behaviour, then society is deluding itself.
Also: “…and collectively we can control our impulses or desires and accept that unless we respect one another and our collective ethical and moral ethos, we are not civilised and become lesser animals. Without that self-control, anything goes.”
Tell that to the 1%ers whose impulses are to raise their wealth and power by minimising the benefits which should be apportioned to those who actually create society’s prosperity.
The demonising of natural sexuality by prohibition and by manufactured morés has been one of the most effective instuments in the toolbox of the authoritarian heirarchies which have benefitted from the mental and emotional confusion that such twisted ‘norms’ create.
You need to delve beneath the surface of confected ‘moralities’ to approach an understanding of how much the hoi polloi is manipulated by the forces of artificial, unnatural propriety.
Respect for one another is a wholly different matter; something which is rarely proffered by those who claim the right to judge the ‘morality’ of others.
My grandson did very well in his HSC exams, I’m so happy I don’t care who gives him a kiss, if any of his excellent teachers want to give him a kiss or a hug, be they male, female, or anything else,it’s fine by me…..
He went trekking in Indonesia with his mates after the exams ( back tomorrow), so not even his parents or I have been able to give him kiss…
My friendly youngish Greek Doctor puts his arm on my shoulder when he says goodbye; nothing more than a kind humane gesture of respect for an older person….
Exactly, Helvityni, it is all about context and intent.
The intent of your doctor was affection and respect.
The problem is when intent is derived from self-entitlement without respect or empathy towards another person.
For example, have you never been groped by unseen hands at a party, pub or in a crowd? Or even been told you are beautiful, then expected to “pay” for the compliment?
It’s OK if you don’t reply, I understand we have disagreed once or twice in the past. So it goes …
Most people with any level of intelligence, nous, or common sense can work out whether any act is perfectly ok in its context. The trouble these days is that every action, word, gesture or reaction is photographed, videoed and commented on by the entire planet within seconds. No-one has any chance at all of a simple peck on the cheek, or a gentle hug – I was not allowed to comfort tiny children in our school when on parent help !!
We have gone mad. Never mind the rise of the machines, they at least have no emotions and no feelings.
Keitha GranvilleDecember 23, 2018 at 8:42 pm
Most people with any level of intelligence, nous, or common sense can work out whether any act is perfectly ok in its context. The trouble these days is that every action, word, gesture or reaction is photographed, videoed and commented on by the entire planet within seconds. No-one has any chance at all of a simple peck on the cheek, or a gentle hug – I was not allowed to comfort tiny children in our school when on parent help !!We have gone mad. Never mind the rise of the machines, they at least have no emotions and no feelings.
Keitha, you took the words right out of my mouth….
Diannaart, there’s nothing wrong with disagreeing, what matters is that it’s done civilly…with humour and goodwill.
We all make mistakes, nothing wrong with that either, and if we don’t like someone, we can always jump over their posts; we are not going to change anyone here…we are all very “grown-up”…( I wish)…
Merry Christmas to all.
Shaun, I agree with you re: Keitha’s post above.
Shaun
Like many women, I have spent a lifetime of unwanted gropes, attention, attempts to intimidate and, yes, rape.
Not one of these men (and a few women) were unintelligent, some might’ve been drunk or high, but most were perfectly aware of what they were doing. The invisible gropers were self aware enough to disappear into the crowd, not even today’s technology would catch those creeps.
These people know they are stepping over the line.
Now, I am older, mostly invisible, but STILL have had problems, at least I am better at dealing with the unwanted.
In a perfect world people would be able to consider the impact of their behaviour on others and desist.
This is not a perfect world.
Helvityni
Thank you for taking the time to reply to me. As you said, we all make mistakes. I have already apologised to you.
If I am interested in what someone has to say, I don’t worry about my personal likes or dislikes, but we are all different, cie la vie.
May you have an excellent Christmas and New Year.
The same Doctor who schussed me the other day, offered to help me when I struggled with my bra clips…
I almost laughed but then just mumbled polite thanks, I can manage…
Many women would have taken him the wrong way, I suspect as a very intelligent man and an excellent Doctor he might be a borderline Asperger, and can’t read people very well…a bit like the one of the BBC/ ABC series….
helvityni….: ” My friendly youngish Greek Doctor puts his arm on my shoulder when he says goodbye;”……..
Greeks bearing gifts….(taps side of nose w / index finger)….jus’ sayin’…… 🙂
I agree that context and intentions are important, but we must be mindful that there can be extenuating circumstances where harmless gestures are not viewed that way by the recipient.
A young girl I taught in my early days was a tough cookie who was often in trouble with other teachers. She and I eventually developed a good working relationship – something which took a fair bit of work, compromise and resilience from both of us. A few weeks after I was transferred to another school, I got a letter from her mother pleading with me to come and see her daughter who had been expelled/suspended (can’t remember which) for assaulting a male teacher who had innocently put his arm around her. What he didn’t know was that she had been raped when she was 11.
Joe, I have more trouble with the Dutchmen, they are ALWAYS right…surely that is not possibly…LOL
And sometimes even when one tries to avoid distasteful scenes,One can’t escape…:
This friend I had in Melbourne (gosh..when I think back on so many friends I had before they invented the internet!!), aware as he was that his girlfriend of the time was very jealous, he would rigoriusly avoid any “seeing” of other girls (they were both young at the time)..However one day, when they were caught in slow traffic, in the lane nearest to the footpath, he espied from a fair way away coming toward him a young woman of generous proportions wearing a tight sweater…I don’t think I need explain how males have this natural capacity for telescopic vision when it comes to the opposite gender…sufficient to say that Nostradamus himself couldn’t see as far into the future as your average male can into the distant crowds at a shopping mall and spot that one cause of his disquiet…
He knew he had better not look to the lady if he knew what was good for him, so with a white-knuckled grip of the steering wheel, he slowly crept the car past as the young lady came abreast, keeping his eyes super-glued to the road ahead.
But just as the girl walked past, he received this almighty smack to the back of his head from his girlfriend!
“What was that for!?” he cried..
“That girl with the tight sweater…” his delight accused.
“I wasn’t looking at her..” he bewailed “I was watching the road ahead…” and he rubbed the sore spot..
“No!” she sneered..”But you wanted to!!”
Helvityni…I have a theory about the Dutch…It is because so much of their country is below sea-level, that they “overcompensate” because they have this resentful feeling that the rest of Europe is “looking down on them”…. 🙂
“. . . “Will she stay the while?….” Suzanne repeated his request. She looked into his eyes, she leaned toward him, her breath quickened, their eyes held till the hiatus was broken by the gentle touching of their fingers intertwined….
A kiss! a kiss! ……..”
Ahh!..You’re only young once..
Good point, Kaye Lee
No one can know of another’s personal experiences, what is thought to be an innocent touch, or even words may strike a nerve.
Being mindful and respectful of others does not mean having to be in agreement all the time. It is not difficult, but does require care and thoughtfulness instead of just reacting.
For example, jokes at another’s expense. The only time this is appropriate is when people know each other very well, therefore aware of how the other may feel or respond. The same goes for sexual behaviour, be mindful, considerate and respectful.
Diannaart,
That is why I found the discussion about who gets to draw the line so thought-provoking.
The Rush case exemplifies how fraught that conversation is.
The woman I saw interviewed admitted she reciprocated in the banter with Rush which she said she did because she was starstruck and flattered. She seemed a willing participant, always responding to texts which, after all, weren’t all that threatening, so it is reasonable for Rush to assume that it was all in good fun, though I do accept the power imbalance.
She said she then sent him an email saying it was making her feel uncomfortable. I have an uneasy feeling that email came after the story broke in the papers but I am not sure. She then expressed disappointment that he did not respond? Surely that was the best course when told his overtures had made her uncomfortable – or did she want an apology or confession of intentions that may not have been there?
For me, this case underlines the importance of telling someone if you feel uncomfortable so everyone knows where they stand. But that, of course, implies that you have the right to ask for your feelings to be considered regardless of the innocence or otherwise of another’s intentions without being criticised for your request.
Imagine how differently things may have gone had Barnaby Joyce, rather than saying to the press he was being slandered by Catherine Marriott and demanding the police investigate, contacted her privately and offered profuse apologies for any offence or distress he may have caused her.
It was the 80’s and I was a physics teacher. A particular Year 11 boy who I had not taught before, took a real dislike to me. I couldn’t understand why, I was reasonably popular with students and got good results, but I did not take any nonsense in the classroom. I later found out, that as a 10 year old he had witnessed his father shoot his mother dead and turn the gun on to himself. I assumed that maybe the young man saw me as a figure of authority and this caused his resentment. So context was important in my understanding of this student.
It was the 80’s and credit was difficult to get. I applied for a loan through the Teachers Credit Union and expected to have to wait for months. I received approval for the loan within the week and with it came a note saying hello to me. It was from that same young man, now working for the credit union who had found my application and put it to the top.
Kaye Lee
When young, I lacked the self confidence to state my feelings, tried to laugh my way out of situations. No one would know how I really felt. I don’t believe I was the only young woman/girl who behaved so cringingly self effacing.
Meeting people more powerful, famous, often admirable for their work, creates another layer of disassociation between people.
I’ve met Geoffrey Rush, briefly on set. He struck me as very gregarious, funny and open. So I was disappointed to hear of the allegations, however he is from a generation of men who remain oblivious to the effect their privilege may have on others.
Excusing unwanted behaviour just because of ignorance and privilege no longer works. Young women and men are far more self aware of their rights and self respect.
We also have limitless ways to express our feelings, this can appear to be an onslaught of attacks to the (still in many ways) blissfully ignorant.
And humans are just getting started with the immediacy of communication, the self awareness and education across gender and class and the courage to stand up to infringement upon one’s sense of autonomy.
Imagine how differently things may have gone had Barnaby Joyce, rather than saying to the press he was being slandered by Catherine Marriott and demanding the police investigate, contacted her privately and offered profuse apologies for any offence or distress he may have caused her.
Barnaby Joyce feels he is the injured party. His bubble of privilege was pricked and he did not like it. Therefore, any chance of him doing the sensible thing such as apologising just was not and remains not in his frame of reference.
Also, he’s a politician with the thick hide and arrogance that goes with the job.
Whereas, Geoffrey Rush is probably a more sensitive soul. Did the 2 women who complained about him try to contact him first? If they did and were given the brush off, then I can understand why they went public.
Tricky, complicated but not impossible to negotiate a way through human interaction.
Well put Diannaart.
Our youth give me hope. They make me smile.
Kaye Lee
I am far more comfortable among young people than with too many older people who appeared to have dodged the getting of any wisdom.
😌
It is good that a conversation around respect is in progress, but one has to be watchful as to how this universal condemnation of the “every-male perpetrator” is constructed.
I can see just on this page, where individual cases are given as example of sometimes tragic moments…and then a non sequitir is applied to use such examples as a universal phenomenon.
In the Geoffery Rush accusations, for example, where an individual’s accusations are held to a spotlight and suddenly a universal condemnation of the man as..well..you know the accusations that have been applied..I won’t add to them..but even further, those same individual accusations are added to other innuendo to “prove” a case for the need to change the whole system because of . . . ?
And this is the primary cause/case alluded to in George’s article…whence does an innoccent peck..in the hands of gender based accusation against males in general…become a salacious kiss?
Ans’ : When so many personal experiences from individuals are melded together to be implied as a universal problem.
Joseph
No one has claimed every male (is) a perpetrator.
Can you understand the concept of talking about problems as not taking personal shots at either individuals or groups of people.
We are discussing generational power and privilege. Which applies to anyone, male or female who believe they are more entitled than others.
I had hoped to discuss some of the complexities of such matters by giving a few examples of very different situations.
It is disappointing if that has been misunderstood to mean condemnation for all males though I cannot for the life of me see how that quantum leap could be taken from anything I wrote.
From George’s article… ;
” But had that teacher been me, a man, who had felt those very same feelings with his students -the joyful excitement when they won, the sad and sympathetic heart when they had to struggle against harsh realities – had that teacher been me, kissing that boy or – Zeus fore-fend, a girl ! – the story, I dare suggest with quite some certainly, would have had a different ending.”
Let us hold to the subject under discussion….now is not the time for personal egos to demand the footlights.
“whence does an innoccent peck..in the hands of gender based accusation against males in general…become a salacious kiss?
Ans’ : When so many personal experiences from individuals are melded together to be implied as a universal problem.”
I am so confused by you Joseph. No-one could consider what the teacher in George’s story did salacious. The whole point of the article, I presumed, was to ask us would it be considered inappropriate in today’s climate.
If there are so many personal experiences to recount, perhaps there is a problem worth discussing?
The question I have been trying to pose is how much consideration should be given to the feelings of the recipient compared to the intentions of the giver? Everyone’s personal life experience moulds them and influences how they perceive and react to things.
Contrary to what you may think, I personally have no problem with men. Then again, I did learn how to forcefully say no at an early age. All the men I know know where I draw my line.
Once again, I will depart. You make it very hard for me to have a genuine conversation Joseph. I am sorry that you perceive me commenting as sign of an over-inflated ego rather than an interest in the topic. This is not a battle for supremacy. It is a conversation. Or it could be, if we could listen honestly and speak respectfully.
” In didactic method of teaching, the teacher gives instructions to the students and the students are mostly passive listeners. It is a teacher-centered method of teaching and is content oriented. The content or knowledge of the teacher is not questioned.
The process of teaching involves the teacher who gives instructions, commands, delivers content, and provides necessary information. The pupil activity involves listening and memorization of the content. In the modern education system, lecture method which is one of the most commonly used methods is a form of didactic teaching. “
Well done, Joe
I am finished with this discussion.
Kaye Lee
You, I and others will continue to talk when and where it suits us. For yours truly, just not right now. Chronic illness has forced a level of discernment I need/must apply.
N.Drake,
“@ nonsibicunctus: “Both the judge and the teacher stepped over that line of recognition of what society considers acceptable.”
If that is the way that ‘society’ considers such behaviour, then society is deluding itself.”
You may consider society to be deluding itself but you are wrong. Society, as a collective, determines what it considers appropriate or acceptable behaviour, not individuals. That there may be many individuals in society who feel differently to the ‘norm’, is something with which I would agree. I would also agree that many of society’s norms can be unfortunate, even harmful. The reality remains that each society will have them and they will vary in their quality, wisdom, necessity or whatever. They will also change over time. The fact remains that they exist and when one is acting in public role, i.e. as a representative of society, one needs to conform to them. That does not mean that one has to agree with them. One can follow prescribed practices or guideline and coincidentally speak against them. However, to simply dismiss or refuse to comply with those guidelines is unlikely to help your cause. When you act in that way you render yourself open to criticism for being someone who breaches standards, guidelines or accepted practice and will therefore provide the ammunition for those you oppose to dismiss your opinion.
“…and collectively we can control our impulses or desires and accept that unless we respect one another and our collective ethical and moral ethos, we are not civilised and become lesser animals. Without that self-control, anything goes.”
N. Drake, I am well aware of the inequities in our society and of the dubious ethical and moral standards of many of the 1% and I consistently tell them so in very strong terms, within the capacity I have to do so. Should you doubt that, you need only search my nom de plume or my actual name: Roger Hawcroft, and read what I’ve written in a whole host of forums and online sites. In any case, your, “Tell that to the 1%ers…” only serves to negate your own argument and bolster the point made in the extract you have quoted.
“The demonising of natural sexuality by prohibition and by manufactured morés [sic] has been one of the most effective instuments [sic] in the toolbox of the authoritarian heirarchies [sic] which have benefitted from the mental and emotional confusion that such twisted ‘norms’ create.”
That may or may not be the truth, however even should it be so, [and I see no evidence that such is the case] I fail to see why you raise it in this context. A point I made in my comment was that, as civilised beings, it is incumbent upon us to exercise control of our impulses, desires, feelings or what have you. Incidentally, norms are rarely twisted other than from the point of view of a different social grouping or in hindsight.
I don’t need: “to delve beneath the surface of confected ‘moralities’ to approach an understanding of how much the hoi polloi is manipulated by the forces of artificial, unnatural propriety.” I am only too well aware of hypocrisy, pretentiousness and the use of contrived codes, standards and such which are used by some as indicators of worth and position within the social hierarchy. Your description of such as “unnatural propriety” is unfortunate for all propriety is unnatural; it exists because it contributes to harmony in society and comes about by general agreement of what is acceptable and what is not.
“respect for one another is a wholly different matter; something which is rarely proffered by those who claim the right to judge the ‘morality’ of others.”
I’m unsure of what it is to which you consider “respect for one another” to be “a wholly different matter”. If you are suggesting that respect is very different to pretentiousness or the notion that someone deserves respect simply because they hold a particular role or position in society, then I agree with you. If, on the other hand, you are suggesting that adherence to social norms and traits and the worth of acting with propriety towards others is somehow at odds with ‘respect’, then I must disagree.
I am used to people speaking and writing at a superficial level so your comment did not surprise me, nor the silence on my contribution from others and the descent into anecdotal rhetoric and its collective use and mutual back-slapping being represented as astute argument supportive of false generalisations. Joseph Carli made apt and measured mention of this only to be indignantly rebuffed by those engaged in it and finally, rudely dismissed in an arrogant dismissal of his contribution and shutting down of the discussion.
Such superficial exchanges and mutual repetition are common in general face to face debate but even more-so in online forums such as this. That is unfortunate because one would hope for and expect the Independent Media to offer comment of a more substantial, more objective and more considered nature.
nonsibicunctis to N.Drake,
“@ nonsibicunctus: “Both the judge and the teacher stepped over that line of recognition of what society considers acceptable.”
If that is the way that ‘society’ considers such behaviour, then society is deluding itself.”
You may consider society to be deluding itself but you are wrong. Society, as a collective, determines what it considers appropriate or acceptable behaviour, not individuals. That there may be many individuals in society who feel differently to the ‘norm’, is something with which I would agree. I would also agree that many of society’s norms can be unfortunate, even harmful. The reality remains that each society will have them and they will vary in their quality, wisdom, necessity or whatever. They will also change over time. The fact remains that they exist and when one is acting in public role, i.e. as a representative of society, one needs to conform to them. That does not mean that one has to agree with them. One can follow prescribed practices or guideline and coincidentally speak against them. However, to simply dismiss or refuse to comply with those guidelines is unlikely to help your cause. When you act in that way you render yourself open to criticism for being someone who breaches standards, guidelines or accepted practice and will therefore provide the ammunition for those you oppose to dismiss your opinion.
“…and collectively we can control our impulses or desires and accept that unless we respect one another and our collective ethical and moral ethos, we are not civilised and become lesser animals. Without that self-control, anything goes.”
N. Drake, I am well aware of the inequities in our society and of the dubious ethical and moral standards of many of the 1% and I consistently tell them so in very strong terms, within the capacity I have to do so. Should you doubt that, you need only search my nom de plume or my actual name: Roger Hawcroft, and read what I’ve written in a whole host of forums and online sites. In any case, your, “Tell that to the 1%ers…” only serves to negate your own argument and bolster the point made in the extract you have quoted.
“The demonising of natural sexuality by prohibition and by manufactured morés [sic] has been one of the most effective instuments [sic] in the toolbox of the authoritarian heirarchies [sic] which have benefitted from the mental and emotional confusion that such twisted ‘norms’ create.”
That may or may not be the truth, however even should it be so, [and I see no evidence that such is the case] I fail to see why you raise it in this context. A point I made in my comment was that, as civilised beings, it is incumbent upon us to exercise control of our impulses, desires, feelings or what have you. Incidentally, norms are rarely twisted other than from the point of view of a different social grouping or in hindsight.
I don’t need: “to delve beneath the surface of confected ‘moralities’ to approach an understanding of how much the hoi polloi is manipulated by the forces of artificial, unnatural propriety.” I am only too well aware of hypocrisy, pretentiousness and the use of contrived codes, standards and such which are used by some as indicators of worth and position within the social hierarchy. Your description of such as “unnatural propriety” is unfortunate for all propriety is unnatural; it exists because it contributes to harmony in society and comes about by general agreement of what is acceptable and what is not.
“respect for one another is a wholly different matter; something which is rarely proffered by those who claim the right to judge the ‘morality’ of others.”
I’m unsure of what it is to which you consider “respect for one another” to be “a wholly different matter”. If you are suggesting that respect is very different to pretentiousness or the notion that someone deserves respect simply because they hold a particular role or position in society, then I agree with you. If, on the other hand, you are suggesting that adherence to social norms and traits and the worth of acting with propriety towards others is somehow at odds with ‘respect’, then I must disagree.
I am used to people speaking and writing at a superficial level so your comment did not surprise me, nor the silence on my contribution from others and the descent into anecdotal rhetoric and its collective use and mutual back-slapping being represented as astute argument supportive of false generalisations. Joseph Carli made apt and measured mention of this only to be indignantly rebuffed by those engaged in it and finally, rudely dismissed in an arrogant dismissal of his contribution and shutting down of the discussion.
Such superficial exchanges and mutual repetition are common in general face to face debate but even more-so in online forums such as this. That is unfortunate because one would hope for and expect the Independent Media to offer comment of a more substantial, more objective and more considered nature.
“I am used to people speaking and writing at a superficial level so your comment did not surprise me, nor the silence on my contribution from others and the descent into anecdotal rhetoric and its collective use and mutual back-slapping being represented as astute argument supportive of false generalisations. Joseph Carli made apt and measured mention of this only to be indignantly rebuffed by those engaged in it and finally, rudely dismissed in an arrogant dismissal of his contribution and shutting down of the discussion.”
Who judges what is superficial and what is profound? Could it be that there is just conversation and discussion between interested readers?
The article was about an anecdote so I am not sure what we were descending from by discussing related situations or experiences.
I am unsure about the “mutual back-slapping being represented as astute argument.” Does that have any connection to your comment about “the silence on my contribution from others”?
As for the “arrogant dismissal of Joseph” and “shutting down of the discussion”, that was not my intention. I was accused of making this a pissing contest – something that was certainly not my intention – so I said I would withdraw from the conversation. I at no stage wanted or tried to lecture people but that is obviously how my contributions were being perceived. What would you have me do?
So, the female spread folklore notion that ‘all men are fixated on their penis’ or ‘all men think about is sex’ come to have an undeserved credibility in a civilised society and the apportioning of trust becomes skewed or warped.
Female spread folklore notion that “ all men …….”?
We females are not so witless as to paint all men with one brush. Besides plenty of men describe themselves as having two heads …
I am used to people speaking and writing at a superficial level so your comment did not surprise me, nor the silence on my contribution from others and the descent into anecdotal rhetoric and its collective use and mutual back-slapping being represented as astute argument supportive of false generalisations. Joseph Carli made apt and measured mention of this only to be indignantly rebuffed by those engaged in it and finally, rudely dismissed in an arrogant dismissal of his contribution and shutting down of the discussion.
How dare people write at a superficial level? According to the judgement of Roger Hawcroft. We should listen to the wisdom of elderly males, instead of putting forth our own very real experiences (AKA anecdotes) and attempting to look at vexing issues from all sides, not just one. Also I prefer to listen to a diverse range of opinion, from the very young to the old.
Then we disagree with Joseph Carli, which is apparently a faux pas, his “apt declarations” are to be accepted wholly at face value, not questioned or challenged.
So sayeth the elders. Who no longer learn, instead they lecture.
It seems almost a distraction to suggest that your article and the responses highlight completely the concerns about the MeToo campaigns. Not that the campaigns aren’t completely warranted, given the lack of response at an international and institutional level from the Jimmy Savile matters, who made Harvey Weinstein look like an excitable teenager by comparison.
It is interesting that both your article and most of the comments don’t concern themselves with the student who received the attention. Isn’t that the only opinion worth seeking? The matter of other people’s impressions, however vocal they may get, are of neither relevance or interest. It is a reflection of modern society that the total concern is for the views and opinions of third parties.
The next progression is the inherent weakness when there is no complaints mechanism. As the MeToo movement has not established any formal relevant tribunal to hear and investigate complaints, the victims currently have no alternative but to seek solace or redress through the court of public opinion. The media is more than happy to oblige and the more titillating or salacious the account, the higher the profile of the respondent, the greater the voyeuristic appeal.
The reference to the Rush matter is interesting as it is a court case based solely on defamation, yet is constantly reported on through the prism of the MeToo movement. None of its legal considerations concern the victim, other than an attempt to establish a ‘truth’ defence and many initial reports stated she had made the original complaint with no stated desire to take any further action. It’s also interesting to note that journalist Tracey Spicer is probably further ahead than our government and institutions in recording and addressing complaints, but cognisant of the need to first change our incredibly outdated defamation laws.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-01/what-is-holding-up-the-metoo-movement-in-australia/9822350
Make no mistake, this is a huge problem and is a critical factor in addressing the changes that are needed at a cultural level. Behaviours that were tolerated or accepted as recently as five years ago are now being called out for what they are. To change those inbuilt inherent stereotypes requires a change to our education system and previous ‘culture changes’ have typically taken 2 generations (30 years). The BBC documentary/experiment ‘No more Boys and Girls’ was an excellent start.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/proginfo/2017/33/no-more-boys-and-girls
The response to Dr Javid’s experiment would suggest we’re not ready for that yet. Many of the comments are from people taking offence on behalf of the children. There don’t appear to be any effects on the children, other than correcting the imbalance created by stereotyping.
http://www.newnownext.com/no-more-boys-and-girls-bbc/08/2017/
The natural home for a tribunal that wouldn’t take too much setting up is through the Australian Human Rights Commission. Both matters, abuse of power and inappropriate behaviour, are matters of fundamental abuse of human rights. This would enable proper investigation with supportive counselling and moderating functions.
Like our First People, women suffer through so much structural discrimination, they too should seek a voice to parliament.
Your scenario is very reminiscent of ‘The Slap’ and it’s funny that so many of the comments in this thread demonstrate the same outcome. The initial incident becomes the subject of everyone else’s reactions, rather than the incident.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Slap_(novel)
“To examine it, to judge it, to understand it one needs to look at its context, at its heart.”
Isn’t that the problem? We are encouraged to make a judgement when often ignorant of the circumstances or context. A frequent complaint about the media and court reporting is that they will take one line from some evidence and make it sound like a central point to the case. The time honoured tradition of not commenting on court cases unless you have sat through the entire matter is long gone, of course. It’s a bit sad really.
Thank you Mr Theodoridis and commenters, with apologies for the digressions. Take care
As for “the female spread folklore notion that ‘all men are fixated on their penis’ or ‘all men think about is sex’ “, that is one of the things I have disagreed with Joseph about. I most certainly do not think that is the case. I do not think that all men are uncontrollably compelled to ogle a woman in a form-fitting top.
Kyran,
“It is interesting that both your article and most of the comments don’t concern themselves with the student who received the attention. Isn’t that the only opinion worth seeking? ”
Maybe I have been unclear but that is what I have been trying to talk about all along. The recipient’s feelings are the thing that determines if a line has been crossed in such a situation. (I will amend that. Sometimes people have to be protected. George’s story is certainly not an example of that IMO)
I would also like to say that it isn’t just men that are struggling with changing expectations. We women are encouraged to speak up and look what happens when we do. And I don’t mean me or any other female commenters….look beyond our disagreements here. Women who speak up don’t get an easy ride. Men who might support their view, perhaps even less so.
Kyran
I did not comment specifically on the article for a few reasons. Some of which I will attempt to put into words.
I don’t have a problem with a teacher of any sexual orientation giving a student a peck on the cheek as part of praise for success in their studies.
I am saddened that many male teachers feel constrained on how to express themselves emotionally – as if we need further emotional straitjacketing of men.
However, to look at the reasons leading to this sorry state requires a big leap into a very deep rabbit hole. I am simply not equipped to write in any length. I will note the following facts:
1 Children have been sexually abused and exploited by adults – mostly men.
2 Women and young men have been sexually abused and exploited by more powerful or intimidating adults – mostly men.
The ‘outing’ of this behaviour, which in the past was ignored, covered up or simply excused, has set in place an outpouring from many people who now have the means to express their outrage. Be it #MeToo or other forums such as AIMN.
I would also like to note that most complainants have tried for anonymity and were outed for political or other reasons. Most people would prefer to be heard within clearly defined and respectful boundaries. Instead complainants and the accused are subjected to a barrage of salacious and hostile comments.
We do need a framework as suggested, a tribunal of human rights which would be an umbrella service for any minority from the world’s largest to those of alternative gender orientation.
We also need to stop belittling people who are speaking from their direct life experience. These “anecdotes” are valid and should not be silenced.
In my defence Ms Lee, which is always the worst way to start a sentence, I used the word ‘most’. Notwithstanding that, my apologies for the sweeping generalisations. Your further observation about people needing protection goes without saying. We are currently without any structure, formal or otherwise, to adequately address that, outside of an outdated legal system that is notoriously slow to change. In my opinion, that is just plain wrong.
Regarding your other comment, Jamila Rizvi’s book, ‘Not Just Lucky’, is a perfect example of the price paid by some women for having done nothing other than speak up.
https://www.jamilarizvi.com.au/about/
Thankfully, she has the intestinal fortitude and self confidence to tell the gits to ‘go away’. Clementine Ford is another one who is wonderfully dismissive of dinosaurs, although the reaction to her underscores your point.
Diannaart, I couldn’t agree more about the emotional restraints and constraints so many men put on themselves. This is one of the reasons why the BBC show was so informative and highlights one of the reasons why education is critical to any process of change. The rest is, as you say, one heck of a rabbit hole.
It was not my intention to belittle any of the anecdotes, or the emotion that is ‘risked’ when telling accounts of real life experiences. If that was the way it was taken, I apologise without reservation.
As always, take care.
Here you go…Something to cheer yers all up over Chrissy!
The Secret.
Ladies…
I know a little secret,
I’ll not share with other men.
It’s deep, it’s dark, it’s truth is stark,
It’s come down millennium.
It’s so complex that a genius,
Would have to give it a rest,
Yet, so disarmingly simple..
A child could tell it best.
I first heard it’s whisper in the wild oats,
Whose husks had shed their seed.
The breezes hustled the golden sheaths,
Where small lizards scurried beneath.
It was told me in the cries of birds,
The scratching bark of the mallee tree.
It was told me in my lover’s embrace,
When we kissed our anniversary.
The secret came from the other side,
Of the wide, vast universe.
But it really started right here and now,
In the confines of this Earth.
It is nothing strange or unusual,
But it can never be told.
It is as young as a first desire,
As a drama about to unfold,
AND..
As needed and as fought for,
As the last breath of the old.
The secret was known to those,
That first built ancient Athens town,
That sculptured the mighty Empire of Rome..
And then in anger tore both down.
It was known to Cleopatra,
When as concubine she went to Caesar
But then did, in the time of anarchy,
Present as Queen to Marc Antony.
It was sought by Van Gogh’s sad postman,
His crows in a wheaten field,
It was held in the breast of Manet’s
Absinthe Drinker’s desolate gaze.
It is a hunger never satiated,
A thirst never quenched.
A vein to mine as rich as Croesus ,
Yet a pauper would hold more wealth.
But..
It is denied to the cruel and greedy,
Those seekers of mammon and of wealth.
For it can be seen in their gold and silver ,
Their envy and their pelf.
That there, at the base of their every building,
Be it of of marble or Platinum.
Lay the broken, twisted bodies ,
Of abandoned, homeless humans.
So they will never be rewarded,
With it’s velvet glove of desire,
Their hands too full already,
Their eyes too blind to inquire.
So :
Ladies…
There is this little secret that ,
I’ll not share with other men.
It’s deep, it’s dark , it’s truth rather stark.
Though the wording mostly unseen.
You may know it or at least sense it,
For it was whispered you at birth.
You wear it as a heritage,
You shed it at your death.
Though you may not explain it fully,
There are times , I think you know..
When the call of men and children,
Must need your attention most of all.
I promise I will never reveal it,
Because that secret is held you see..
In a knowing look , a furtive wink,
exchanged in passing,
Just between you and me.
Kyran
I really need to take more care with how I assemble my thoughts into words.
My comments regarding the validity of personal experience was aimed at some other commentators here. Always the same attempts by such people to diminish and demean others with whom they simply do not respect nor take seriously.
Unlike your good self, Kyran. You strive for balance and I thank you.
I too appreciate your comments Kyran. You are tolerant and thoughtful and always informative. You listen and attempt to understand even when we don’t express ourselves well. Communicating through typed words is hard, particularly to people who don’t know you. But if we persevere, listening to each other, then we get better at it. (PS I have never taken any offence to any comment you have made. I appreciate your thoughts)
I’m wondering about what’s more damaging to young school children:
A quick kiss on the student’s cheek for job well done given by a well-meaning kind teacher.
or
Being caned on tender ,still growing fingers by an angry teacher because the child did not know the answer to her/his question, or whose behaviour in the class was slightly naughty…
I believe this caning is still done in places in Queensland…Quelle horreur
RE:
Any teacher who engages in such activity will have a very, very short career. And there’s any number of (ex)teachers who will attest to that. Rule 1 – keep your hands (and other body parts) completely away from students. As for kissing – it’s an absolute no no. Don’t even think of it. Someone will be watching. That’s the legal advice given by Teacher Unions, Departments of Education, Boards of Teacher Registration, and any other legally constituted body you care to think of.
Yes it may be done with good intent (not sure how you determine that) but the (objective) outcome is that contact did occur. And there will be witnesses. That’s the legal reality. Advice to student teachers through to older teachers (especially the older male ones) – simply don’t do it. But the vast majority of teachers know that and they know of an (ex)colleague or two who forgot.
Teacher Union legal bills for accused teachers are frightening.
helvityni, caning of students in Queensland State Schools virtually ended with the election of the Goss Labor government in 1989 – after 32 years of Country Party/Liberal Party rule. Paul Braddy became the Education Minister. Sure it had been in decline with the power to cane being more and more restricted to Head Teachers (as they were called in those times.) And often it wasn’t done in anger because in many instances the Head Teacher had little or no knowledge of the ‘sin’. It was cold blooded. Indeed somewhat perfunctory.
Without going into all the details, the end of caning was aided and abetted by the President of the QTU, Mary Kelly – sometimes in face of strong internal opposition. Queensland was different – with low levels of University Education and a whole host of other factors that were somewhat unique to this State.
Way back then, with the election of a Labor government, life changed significantly and was as close as anybody to those historic developments. But then, far too busy to keep detailed notes – and how the memory fades.
I would have thought that ‘caning’ was well and truly in the past and I would be very surprised if any school engaged in such activity today. The again, there are those religious schools which still feel the need to beat the Devil out of … But that’s not confined to Queensland.
You are so right, Matters Not. Motivation or intent is beside the point when it comes to judgment. Such acts are a no-no. That’s that. If one thinks that is wrong then you can say so and put it on record but if you do it in disregard of the rules, guidelines, code of ethics, legality, or whatever – you cook your own goose.
Matters Not, I read on our ABC that it was still happening at some schools in Queensland. People could respond to the article, and many of them thought that such a barbaric punishment did the kids a lot of good…
helvityni, I didn’t see the article (if I did I would have read it), but again I would be surprised. Nevertheless, there are those who believe (parents included) that Devils reside in the bodies of certain individuals and the way to expel same is to ‘abuse’ the body so that the Devil in question departs. (I kid you not.)
These days I am not up with the relevant Acts or Regulations that apply to Education in general and Teachers in particular, but I would have thought that professional standards (or whatever) would ban such activity.
Just lost a long post in response. Can’t believe physical punishment still happens. But as Michel Foucault pointed out – now it’s not so much the body but the mind that’s punished.
How wonderful!
What a great Xmas gift you guys have given me! So many observations, so many views, so much to think about, so much nourishment for mind and the soul!
I have only just gone through your words and they come like a great desert after a fantastic Xmas lunch.
I thank you all prodigiously!
What I wanted to do here is to be a Euripides in a decade of Aeschyluses and Sophocleses, an era when mortals were let off the hook by blaming the gods, the Fates, the stars, the “soul” of the man and whatever else that had nothing to with anything but not the sum of man+context that had brought about the deed.
Not to look at the deed alone but with everything else around it.
And the deed is the quintessential part of the context.
No context, no deed.
That’s why I didn’t mention morality or the law or the person’s “soul” or character when I was discussing the true incident with which I’ve begun the article.
I have left the legal compact between teacher and student out of the incident for the same reason. Compacts, agreements, laws change. They are always in a state of flux (to use Heraclitus’ words) and they are made by politicians and enforced by the judiciary whose ground is always tentative.
I wanted to get a spherical view of the incident. From all angles, angles being, place and time of incident, place and time viewed, the gender of the doer and that of the viewer.
Would the person seeing this in, say 5th C. BC Athens or 10th C. BC Babylon or today’s Stockholm, or Paris, or my old village in Greece, will that person be seeing the same deed, thinking the same thoughts, feeling the same feelings?
This is why I didn’t want to discuss the deed from the point of view of victims and perpetrators. I didn’t want to ask if the young boy felt as would have felt a victim of anything and I didn’t want to ask the teacher what her intent was so as to determine legal or moral or ethical guilt or innocence.
I asked questions that have tried to turn the incident around so that we could examine it from all sides and angles. The deed itself –which can not be examined without its context.
How would it appear in they eyes of all those audiences if that teacher was a man, or, let me ask another question now, how would it look if, in the excitement of the moment, the student had kissed the teacher? Sure, the power dynamics would change (or would they?) but the deed would still be the same –an excited person kisses another person also excited by the same event.
What then?
I loved all your answers, including the rather prolix poem which, though bereft of rhyme, it was nevertheless, replete with context and humour.
Many thanks all of you and all the very best wishes for these festive days and for the imminent New Year.
George,
For me, your article brought up so many thoughts, so many memories – the perception certainly changed over my years of teaching, as did the rules – and I think that was necessary for the protection of all.
The vast majority of people are well-meaning. We need the rules for those few who are not.
Hope you had a Merry Xmas and thanks for making me think about stuff. That’s what I love about this place.