This is my bugbear. It's not just that parents are better teachers and can offer a more tailored approach, it's that the 'socialisation' 'benefits' of school are actually detriments. There is no benefit to public education. For thousands of years across all societies, kids socialized with their siblings and neighborhood kids, with the elder daughters looking after the youngest. When you became a man at 13 or so, you left the kid groups and were socialised with adults as an apprentice, you were taught to socialize in a meaningful way with responsible adults, trusted with more and more responsibilities, and earning respect. You learnt to behave responsibly from adult groups. This is how we are made to socialise and organise ourselves

The modern school is an aberration and completely disordered social group. Teenagers are not meant to spend all their time learning social skills from other teenagers who do not know how to behave, because they themselves are learning from other teenagers. GIGO. They are learning to 'socialise' in an artificial and inapplicable environment. Nothing they learn at school is applicable outside of it, it is not useful 'socialisation'. And even if it could be in theory, its public nature and lack of exclusion of negative influences means it is never so in practise

Separating the boys from men as rolemodels and teachers in smaller groups is one of the underappreciated blights on our society, and part of the reason we now have men-children till 30. Because they aren't starting the apprentices and learning under other adults till after 24. And male teachers is not the solution. It would help, but this is not what I mean. 1 man cannot teach 30 children how to behave. I'm talking apprentices with few boys amongst many men or the family group, learning to chat and behave responsible by working along side them and learning a trade, as we've always done, from tribal groups to anything pre 1900 or whatever.

I'm also just wary of anything with 'social' in the word. It has other meanings, far leftist ones. Whenever some leftist says they want your kid to be social...... something, be very afraid, suspicious, and know that it means something entirely different to what they want you to think it means.

This is my bugbear. It's not just that parents are better teachers and can offer a more tailored approach, it's that the 'socialisation' 'benefits' of school are actually detriments. There is no benefit to public education. For thousands of years across all societies, kids socialized with their siblings and neighborhood kids, with the elder daughters looking after the youngest. When you became a man at 13 or so, you left the kid groups and were socialised with adults as an apprentice, you were taught to socialize in a meaningful way with responsible adults, trusted with more and more responsibilities, and earning respect. This is how we are made to socialise and organise ourselves

The modern school is an aberration and completely disordered social group. Teenagers are not meant to spend all their time learning social skills from other teenagers who do not know how to behave, because they themselves are learning from other teenagers. GIGO. They are learning to 'socialise' in an artificial and inapplicable environment. Nothing they learn at school is applicable outside of it, it is not useful 'socialisation'. And even if it could be in theory, its public nature and lack of exclusion of negative influences means it is never so in practise

Separating the boys from men as rolemodels and teachers in smaller groups is one of the underappreciated blights on our society, and part of the reason we now have men-children till 30. Because they aren't starting the apprentices and learning under other adults till after 24. And male teachers is not the solution. It would help, but this is not what I mean. 1 man cannot teach 30 children how to behave. I'm talking apprentiships with 1 boy amongst many men or the family, learning to chat and behave responsible by working along side them and learning a trade, as we've always done, from tribal groups to anything pre 1900 or whatever.

I'm also just wary of anything with 'social' in the word. It has other meanings, far leftist ones. Whenever some leftist says they want your kid to be social...... something, be very afraid, suspicious, and know that it means something entirely different to what they want you to think it means.

This is my bugbear. It's not just that parents are better teachers and can offer a more tailored approach, it's that the 'socialisation' 'benefits' of school are actually detriments. There is no benefit to public education. For thousands of years across all societies, kids socialized with their siblings and neighborhood kids, with the elder daughters looking after the youngest. When you became a man at 13 or so, you left the kid groups and were socialised with adults as an apprentice, you were taught to socialize in a meaningful way with responsible adults, trusted with more and more responsibilities, and earning respect. This is how we are made to socialise and organise ourselves

The modern school is an aberration and completely disordered social group. Teenagers are not meant to spend all their time learning social skills from other teenagers who do not know how to behave, because they themselves are learning from other teenagers. GIGO. They are learning to 'socialise' in an artificial and inapplicable environment. Nothing they learn at school is applicable outside of it, it is not useful 'socialisation'. And even if it could be in theory, its public nature and lack of exclusion of negative influences means it is never so in practise

Separating the teenagers from men as rolemodels and teachers in smaller groups is one of the underappreciated blights on our society, and part of the reason we now have men-children till 30. Because they aren't starting the apprentices and learning under other adults till after 24. And male teachers is not the solution. 1 man cannot teach 30 children how to behave. I'm talking apprentiships with 1 boy amongst many men or the family, learning to chat and behave responsible by working along side them and learning a trade, as we've always done, from tribal groups to anything pre 1900 or whatever.

I'm also just wary of anything with 'social' in the word. It has other meanings, far leftist ones. Whenever some leftist says they want your kid to be social...... something, be very afraid, suspicious, and know that it means something entirely different to what they want you to think it means.

This is my bugbear. It's not just that parents are better teachers and can offer a more tailored approach, it's that the 'socialisation' 'benefits' of school are actually detriments. There is no benefit to public education. For thousands of years across all societies, kids socialized with their siblings and neighborhood kids, with the elder daughters looking after the youngest. When you became a man at 13 or so, you left the kid groups and were socialised with adults as an apprentice, you were taught to socialize in a meaningful way with responsible adults, trusted with more and more responsibilities, and earning respect. This is how we are made to socialise and organise ourselves

The modern school is an aberration and completely disordered social group. Teenagers are not meant to spend all their time learning social skills from other teenagers who do not know how to behave, because they themselves are learning from other teenagers. GIGO. They are learning to 'socialise' in an artificial and inapplicable environment. Nothing they learn at school is applicable outside of it, it is not useful 'socialisation'. And even if it could be in theory, its public nature and lack of exclusion of negative influences means it is never so in practise

Separating the teenagers from men as rolemodels and teachers in smaller groups is one of the underappreciated blights on our society, and part of the reason we now have men-children till 30. Because they aren't starting the apprentices and learning under other adults till after 24. And male teachers is not the solution. 1 man cannot teach 30 children how to behave. I'm talking apprentiships with 1 boy amongst many men or the family, learning to chat and behave responsible by working along side them and learning a trade, as we've always done, from tribal groups to anything pre 1900 or whatever.

I'm also just wary of anything with 'social' in the word. It has other meanings, far leftist ones. Whenever some leftist says they want your kid to be social*...... something, be very afraid, suspicious, and know that it means something entirely different to what they want you to think it means.

This is my bugbear. It's not just that parents are better teachers and can offer a more tailored approach, it's that the 'socialisation' 'benefits' of school are actually detriments. There is no benefit to public education. For thousands of years across all societies, kids socialized with their siblings and neighborhood kids, with the elder daughters looking after the youngest. When you became a man at 13 or so, you left the kid groups and were socialised with adults as an apprentice, you were taught to socialize in a meaningful way with responsible adults, trusted with more and more responsibilities, and earning respect. This is how we are made to socialise and organise ourselves

The modern school is an aberration and completely disordered social group. Teenagers are not meant to spend all their time learning social skills from other teenagers who do not know how to behave, because they themselves are learning from other teenagers. GIGO. They are learning to 'socialise' in an artificial and inapplicable environment. Nothing they learn at school is applicable outside of it, it is not useful 'socialisation'. And even if it could be in theory, its public nature and lack of exclusion of negative influences means it is never so in practise

Separating the teenagers from men as rolemodels and teachers in smaller groups is one of the underappreciated blights on our society, and part of the reason we now have men-children till 30. Because they aren't starting the apprentices and learning under other adults till after 24. And male teachers is not the solution. 1 man cannot teach 30 children how to behave. I'm talking apprentiships with 1 boy amongst many men or the family, learning to chat and behave responsible by working along side them and learning a trade, as we've always done, from tribal groups to anything pre 1900 or whatever.

I'm also just wary of anything with 'social' in the word. It has other meanings, far leftist ones.