was it rape?

[Socrates]

[quote name='skellmeyer' date='Sep 16 2005, 05:38 PM']Well, high school is not so much a Protestant conspiracy as it is a eugenicist and industrialist conspiracy. Gatto has tons more on that aspect of the deal than I do - I just reference him and another guy who did yeoman's work researching the beginning of the "adolescent" concept, and move onto the Magisterial documents.

Essentially, the factory owners, the eugenicists and the anti-immigration crowd all pushed for extended education, each for different reasons. The factory owners wanted to create a malleable factory worker population that would respond to bells. This was best accomplished by cutting families off from one of their best sources of income - the work of children - in order to force the fathers into work they might not otherwise consider just to feed the family.

Agrarian families were multi-income - every person contributed. The single-income family is an artifact of industrialization and child labor laws. It's been around for only the last century of human existence. Meanwhile, the industrialists went to work on the children in the schools, forcing those children into a specific mold of behaviour so they, in turn, would follow their fathers into the factories.

The eugenicists wanted to keep the immigrants from reproducing. Mandatory high school served that purpose by taking away a teen's ability to support a family during prime reproductive years.

The anti-immigration crowd wanted to turn the Catholics into Protestants as rapidly as possible. Since most of the schools were viciously Protestant at the time, the rationale there is easy to see as well.

Compulsory school, especially compulsory high school, answered all those needs. Still does.
[right][snapback]726251[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I'm sure this is covered in your book, but do you have any actual documentation of this alledged Capitalist Conspiracy surrounding schools? Here you say that industrialists wanted schools to seperate children from their fathers to convince them to slave away in the factories. (Wouldn't these evil industrialists wish to keep kids out of shcool to use as cheap factory labor?) In an earlier post, you also blame "capitalists" for "inventing adolescence" in order to exploit their immaturity for marketing purposes. (Children/adolescents did not have significant amounts of disposable income to spend until the 1950s - a long time after 1904, and in very different economic conditions. I would argue that merchandisers exploited these conditions, rather than created them.)
Do you have any actual records or documents from the time of these alleged conspiracies? (I'll regard them as very dubious otherwise.)

I've recently read a book of essays by an author who would agree with you on many things about "adolescence" and modern schools, but who also makes a very convincing case for free-market economics.

[Kilroy the Ninja]

Interestingly enough... the couple in question was just on 20/20.

It's a sad situation. I wish them the best.

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' date='Sep 16 2005, 06:54 PM']She was 12 . And we were not discussing world history, we are discussing a 12 year old raped by a 20 year old who should be in jail.
I cannot believe you would defend a rapist.

Mary would not have been 12. Menarche didn't occur in 12 year olds,  it occurred much later because of the leaner diets.
[right][snapback]726266[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

I thought that she was 12 when they began dating? That doesn't necessarily mean that they had sex from the very beginning. She conceived the child when she was 13, and turned 14 before she was born. I don't want to get in the thick of the argument, but according to the articles she was 13. I'm not saying it was ok or anything, because in todays society I think its rather gross--without even touching on the legal aspects of it--but thats my opinion.

[quote]Prosecutors have alleged Koso and the girl began having sex as early as December 2003, when she was 13 and he was 21[/quote]
[url="http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2005/08/18/local/doc4303e5c83131d041613285.txt"]http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2005/0...1d041613285.txt[/url]

Edited September 17, 2005 by IcePrincessKRS

[skellmeyer]

[quote name='Socrates' date='Sep 16 2005, 09:01 PM']I'm sure this is covered in your book, but do you have any actual documentation of this alledged Capitalist Conspiracy surrounding schools?  Here you say that industrialists wanted schools to seperate children from their fathers to convince them to slave away in the factories.  (Wouldn't these evil industrialists wish to keep kids out of shcool to use as cheap factory labor?)[/quote]

The problem in late 18th century America was that fathers put family before work. Eli Whitney's factories were not consistently manned in the early part of the 1800's because the farmers would only come in to work there when it suited them. Half of an agrarian family's income came from the women and children. They didn't NEED the factory job, and they treated it as one-off labor.

If the industrialists had employed the children alongside the father, half the income would STILL come from the women and the children and no one in the family would NEED the job. The idea was to isolate the income to fewer members of the family (ideally, just one) so that the farmers couldn't afford to stay away from a sure paycheck.

England accomplished this through the enclosure system, wherein farming land was simply taken from the yeoman farmers. That forced them into the cities and the factories. We did it by gradually stripping the teens away from their parents through child labor laws and compulsory schools.

Notice how they cut the children out - child labor laws were created because "the workplace was too dangerous." Factory owners weren't forced to make the workplace safer for the workers, instead, workers were forced to reduce the number of potential income earners in the family by forcibly stripping the teens out of the workforce.

[quote]In an earlier post, you also blame "capitalists" for "inventing adolescence" in order to exploit their immaturity for marketing purposes.  (Children/adolescents did not have significant amounts of disposable income to spend until the 1950s - a long time after 1904, and in very different economic conditions.  I would argue that merchandisers exploited these conditions, rather than created them.)[/quote]

OK, have it your way. Either way, I think we agree that it is in the market's best interest to keep people in adolescence for as long as possible.

But the fact is, there were virtually no high schools in the country prior to 1904. The child labor laws were always passed first, then compulsory schooling was brought in to deal with the "delinquents" on the street, then the school year was gradually extended. Even now, it's being turned into a year-long thing in some areas (eg., California).

In 1850, school was six to twelve weeks long, and not necessarily consecutive weeks. But they were reading Shakespeare and Milton in 5th grade.

[quote]Do you have any actual records or documents from the time of these alleged conspiracies?  (I'll regard them as very dubious otherwise.)

I've recently read a book of essays by an author who would agree with you on many things about "adolescence" and modern schools, but who also makes a very convincing case for free-market economics.
[right][snapback]726389[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Read Gatto's work for all the details. What I spend a chapter on, he spends an entire 8.5x11 300 page book on. He's got quotes from the Congressional Record, all the leading educators of the time, etc.

To my knowledge, no one disputes what Gatto brings forward.

Now, I'm not saying capitalism is all bad - it does a much better job of answering supply and demand problems than any other system out there. While Marx was a looney-tunes in most respects and is justifiably relegated to the trash heap for believing the commune would work, he DID understand that capitalism would eventually create this dissonance.

In fact, that's why he thought atheism was the final end of man. He understood that the factory system - to be effective - HAS to make everyone in the society depend on the factory. The Church, the family, every other tie has to be severed in order to make the factory run.

Now, he was silly enough to believe Rousseau and think man did not suffer from concupiscence, so he thought the workers would eventually unite, throw off the slavery and share everything in a lovey-dovey fashion. Stupid.

He failed to recognize that greed could be turned into a weapon. Every person could be made immature, adolescent, so dependent on the factory that they WOULD eat at their desk, live at their job. So, ultimately, Marx was an idiot. He only saw as far as his nose and no farther.

[Don John of Austria]

she was 13, And regardless of the average age of Menarche in ancient Israel the average age of marriage was 12 to 14, Tradition has it that Mary was in that age range. Tradition also has it that Joseph was much older, possibly a widower 40 or older. So when he contracted for Marriage to Mary, not knowing that she was going to be come upon by the Lord he would have expected to have sex with her so St. Joseph according to your standard was a Pedophile.

And for the record I'm not defending him at all, I have never said he didn't commit Statutory rape. But it was not Pedphilia, nor was it rape in the traditional sense of the term.

By the way she looked very hapy on the television tonight, not like a victim at all.

[avemaria40]

Wow, i didn't know that the conspiracy about public schools was that big. I do know that in my state, that my diocese had to start making Catholic schools b/c the public schools were really Protestant (my state was founded by Congregationalists) and there were even times where Catholic churches were burned down and the crosses stolen as a response to Catholic immigration in my state

[toledo_jesus]

From the first moment I heard that adolescence was invented, I recognized it as a problem. Socially invent a period of life? It's possible, but why do it? Now, someone has brought it out for me, and helped me understand. Eugenics. Sneaky.

[avemaria40]

I'll prob end up homeschooling my kids. Although i've been in public school most of my life and i converted to Catholicism in freshman year of high school. Then again, i was in Catholic school from 1st to 3rd grade

[Aloysius]

We Don't need no education
We don't need no birth control
No planned parenthood in the classroom
Teacher leave those kids alone!

[skellmeyer]

[quote name='avemaria40' date='Sep 17 2005, 10:52 AM']Wow, i didn't know that the conspiracy about public schools was that big.  I do know that in my state, that my diocese had to start making Catholic schools b/c the public schools were really Protestant (my state was founded by Congregationalists) and there were even times where Catholic churches were burned down and the crosses stolen as a response to Catholic immigration in my state
[right][snapback]726889[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

It's hard to call it a conspiracy, because it was just really a bunch of different people who saw a common solution to their diverse problems. They may not even have realized that the others were on board for their own reasons - nor would they care why anyone else agreed with them. Just so long as it happened.

As for the anti-Catholicism, yes, it was absolutely vicious.
But we are baptized in order to be crucified.
The bishops forgot about that.
Like Peter, they tried to tell us little images of Christ that we didn't have to go to Golgatha to suffer and die - they would make some nice tents for us right here and everything would be alright.

So, instead of being transfigured, we were just deformed.

[homeschoolmom]

[quote name='Aloysius' date='Sep 17 2005, 12:57 PM']We Don't need no education
We don't need no birth control
No planned parenthood in the classroom
Teacher leave those kids alone!
[right][snapback]727048[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
Whoa... major flashback...

[Jaime]

[quote name='toledo_jesus' date='Sep 17 2005, 10:25 AM']From the first moment I heard that adolescence was invented, I recognized it as a problem.  Socially invent a period of life?  It's possible, but why do it?  Now, someone has brought it out for me, and helped me understand.  Eugenics.  Sneaky.
[right][snapback]726918[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


Adolescence is not an invention. It is a realization. People like Piaget , Ericksson, and Kohlberg have studied the topic of development. It is not the creation of any particular group.

[toledo_jesus]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Sep 17 2005, 05:11 PM']Adolescence is not an invention.  It is a realization.  People like Piaget , Ericksson, and Kohlberg  have studied the topic of development.  It is not the creation of any particular group.
[right][snapback]727328[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
So nobody else realized it for thousands of years? I find that hard to believe. Adolescence is not present in some cultures today. It seems that the more industrial a culture becomes, the longer it takes to become a man.

[Socrates]

[quote name='hot stuff' date='Sep 17 2005, 04:11 PM']Adolescence is not an invention.  It is a realization.  People like Piaget , Ericksson, and Kohlberg  have studied the topic of development.  It is not the creation of any particular group.
[right][snapback]727328[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

Actually I half-agree and half-disagree with both hot stuff and with those who say adolescence was "invented."

I'd say biologically and psychologically, there is a period of transition between childhood and adulthood. Children don't go to sleep one night, then magically wake up the next fully mature adults.
However, the way modern society has created a class of people who for an extended period of time are considered neither adults nor children, having freedoms but few responsibilities, is modern and has overall been detrimental to society.

I however, do not believe this was all the result of some "capitalist conspiracy" as Mr. Kellmeyer asserts. Since he apparently is rehashing Mr. Gatto's statements, I'd have to search Mr. Gatto's sources, as most of what I've seen here is standard "anti-capitalist" rhetoric and conspiracy theory, which I have seen much of elsewhere and tend to be rather cynical of and unimpressed by.

I think schools can (and in some cases still do) have a good purpose of education. But they should be for true education rather than just a "prison" to hold teenagers until society deems them ready for the workplace. Those teens with no aptitude or interest in serious study should be learning trades rather than wasting there's and other's time in highschool. Those seriously pursuing higher learning would remain in school unhindered by the others.

Edited September 17, 2005 by Socrates

[avemaria40]

Maybe that's b/c u need more school and training to work in an industrialized society, and b/c it's a long time before u can support urself. Maybe that's why some other cultures don't have adolescence. but i believe adolescence is a transitional phase. And research does confirm that it exists. I think, as an adolescent myself, it's a time of growth, where u are taking on more responsibilities and earning more freedoms, however, you are still in the last vestiges of childhood. how ever, Don John of Austria is correct in saying that you become a man when you have to be.