The Voice Note of a Primary School headmaster making the rounds – in a raw use of language – gives insight into the challenges confronting our society. When the family unit begins to disintegrate and basic standards are ignored, we know we have a problem. Many will be quick to condemn the headmaster, BU recommends we ignore the superficial argument if we want to grasp the enormity of the problem we face.
Parents must parent!
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
ac September 22, 2015 at 8:04 PM #
“look these children see worse on the internet who the headmaster trying to fool with that kind of hypocrisy, the tv /social media is a cesspool of denigration. headmaster might not be living in the real world everything is overly exposed not only working mothers fuh christ sake stop being knee jerk hypocrites…..”
Your comments relative to “these children see worse on the internet” may be true.
However, GOOD parents would set up the computer’s (or cell phone) operating system’s “Parental Control” feature in an effort to prevent their children from accessing and exploring sites such as “Orgasn.com” (Donville know ‘bout dah wun) and those that show movies not suitable for children.
Additionally, GOOD parents would not encourage their children to engage in the “cesspool of denigration” by checking the child’s cell phones or internet sites they explored, and dressing appropriately in their presence.
Interestingly, you also mentioned “hypocrisy.”
I know you are of the belief that EVERYTHING members of the DLP say or do are ALWAYS CORRECT.
Therefore, I am suggesting to you that if the principal’s comments were attributed to Ronald Jones, you would have a completely different perspective on this issue.
Now, this action would definitely define “hypocrisy.”
@ Artaxerxes
De ole man got a solution FUH all dese deviant behaviours that have of recent been presented as the voice of reasonable dissent and, incredibly enough, have been able to solicit support from the most sensible of quarters. (Not speaking of AC or Donkey here)
I shall be axe ing one question ” do you (the proposer of the idiocy) have a *** (specifically to refer to the asset in focus) for de ole man to *** to? (Where that shall be the specific action verb being discussed by the idjit)
So for example, in this matter I cud axe “do you ?? Have a daughter who has voumptious proportions who carries her offspring to school while scantily clad revealing pudenda hairs?
And would you ** be disposed to giving de old man and Baffy her particulars of daily perambulation (being prolix) so that we can meet her in equal state of dress with the head of the water hose exposed tomorrow morning? Why after all the children does see penises on the Internet!!
I have found that when you become personal and employ this “subjectivity” objectively, most of the idiot remarks are withdrawn rapidly or their proposers just disappear for a while
@Alvin Cummins September 22, 2015 at 5:41 PM :The word “bastard” in reference to children is no longer part of the Barbadian vernacular.”
Legally that’s true. But I am not talking about legal niceties.
In PRACTICE are the outside children of Bajan men treat the same as lawful children or do their fathers treat them like bastards?
I can show you several of my very nice neighbours whose outside children are not permitted to visit their father’s home…so if that doesn’t make the child a bastard what does then?
I think that we can agree that too many Bajan children have too little access to their fathers. Unless you guys think that fathers are unnecessary
However I do not hold the view that fathers are unnecessary.
what i am opposing is hypocrisy. .the mother goes to pick up a child from school and all of a sudden their is some kind of a “moral”out cry about attire give me a fing brek. .You mean to say that the children first and only place of seeing scanty attire is on the school grounds, What bombastic hypocrisy, Then if the head teacher finds the mothers attire inappropriate to the where it might cause demeaning thoughts simply post a fking dress code sign,furthermore it is not as if the parents are attending some kind of function and then what , What i find offensive is that Bajan men acts likes prudes but have no problem being adulterers and abandoning their children maybe if fathers would play the role of a father and husband, mothers would have a preference of making those choices that are strictly structured within the boundaries of the family,
look bossman (artexeres) i am not talking to you i already advice you not to waddle in sh,te just guh long down the street yuh hear and when you see ac act like yuh never see ac
@David September 22, 2015 at 6:14 PM “Woman play a very special role in the life of the offspring.
Dear David:
With all due respect mothers and fathers are EQUALLY important. What do you think it means when it says in the Bible that “then shall a man leave his father and mother and cleave unto his wife and the two shall become one flesh”
I hope that you understand that the one indivisible flesh of a man and a woman is their child.
Fathers and mothers are EQUALLY responsible for the welfare of the child which they have made.
This BS about women being very special to children has for too long permitted to many Bajan men to get away with doing little or nothing for their children.
@ Simple Simon
This is precisely the point because in juxtaposing the inappropriate behaviour and decorum of the parent against the responsible action of the headmaster you belittle it and categorize it as “we are worrying about a sweetie paper which has blown into the yard….”
This is an open well without a cover not sweetie paper because when a six year old boy whose father you or some other female lay down with a sperm donor and let him breed you, for you to raise by yourself, when that young child is accosted by a big jumpy pudenda on o female, he will not learn to respect her but to see her as a piece of flesh to breed as his absent father also bred, AND LEFT, his mother
We need to prioritize the concepts and understand that that headmaster albeit fighting a losing battle, is seeking to stave of the objectivizing of women that wunna always complaining bout
We menses dun know why sum uh wunna is sluts an GET DOWN PANTIES and why we marry the non sluts through those simple encounters at 6 that that headmaster s raw voice is seeking to address, understand??
@Bush Tea September 22, 2015 at 6:57 PM “@ Simple…. no car payments, no road tax.”
But Bushie the last time I voted for the DLP was when Sandie was PM and even so I am sorry that I voted “D” on that occasion.
If wunna voted “D” of late
Wunna problem…so wunna have to find the solution.
@David September 22, 2015 at 7:16 PM “Pimpers Paradise”
So David did your hero Bob raise all the children he drop all ’bout de place?
Stupseee!!!!!!!!!!
Get serious man.
“The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world”
Strong mothers birth strong sons.
Strong mothers do not let themselves get breed by sperm donors but seek real men.
That same Bible that you are misquoting also says “Be ye not unequally yoked”
You choose a man because of a bulge in his pants and because he can U.K. Up good the the party monarch song then after you get some sense in your head a two babies in you guts, a light bulb goes off to say wait, this man is my chile father but he is not a father to my children nor a Souse or anything to me or them
You are now thirty something and now have this epiphany with two children that you have to father and mother
Parenting is a responsibility that you and the rest of you women’s have in no small part contributed to its erosion cause you wanted the dancer and the bulge so we now have to deal with it
Simple Simon
You are so right, the word bastard to describe children born out of wedlock has been removed from our laws, but the same laws turn around and treat some of them like bastards.
When relationships turn sour, the parties head to the courts for maintenance and access to the children. If the children result from a marriage or a union other than a marriage, the High Court deals with those matters. The judge can make an order for maintenance and access to the parent who does not have day-to-day care and control of the children. A union other than a marriage is a relationship between a man and a woman that resembles a marriage that existed for five or more years.
If the children were the products of casual relationships or the union did not last for five or more years, the mothers have to seek the assistance of a magistrate to get, maintenance. If the children happen to be in the father’s custody, he cannot get maintenance through the magistrates’ courts.
As a matter of fact, the magistrates have no power to order the mother to give access to the father. Mind you, some magistrates appoint themselves judges and give access to the father. It is interesting to note that children of marriages and unions other than marriages are dealt with by a judge under the Family Law Act but the others get their matters heard by a magistrate under the Maintenance Act.
Basically, a different law for bastards.
Sent from my iPad
>
Artaxerxes September 22, 2015 at 9:15 PM “Would you use a similar line of argument if a Judge or Magistrate admonish and refuse entry to a woman who entered Court dressed inappropriately?”
Dear Artaxerxes:
Our courts are hotbeds of thoughtless conservatism.
I remember when my dad sat on juries and the court ordered him to wear long pants, jacket and tie. And if as a poor country tradesman with many children to feed he did not have a jacket and tie the court ordered him to buy the formal English get-up. (WHY?)And since he was a poor black man without a car he had to walk more than a mile through the heat in the Englishman’s get-up. And then stand on a hot un-airconditoned bus for another ten miles or more (WHY) And bear in mind the court was NOT air-conditioned.
Not so long ago our judges wore hot powdered English wigs. (WHY?)
Even now our courts including our family courts orders our women to wear a dress or blouse with s;eevess (WHY?) especially when you bear in mind that the court officials come to the court in an air conditiond car provided by the taxpayers of this country and the people who come to be heard by court officials have probably walked a mile in the heat.
Our courts would serve us much better if they would efficiently dispose of the cases brought before them instead of checking the lengths of women’s sleeves, YES SLEEVES.
@pieceuhderockyeahright September 22, 2015 at 9:50 PM #” Have a daughter who has voumptious proportions who carries her offspring to school while scantily clad revealing pudenda hairs?”
Dear Piece:
If you or the headmaster can see the pubic hairs of the parents then you are standing way to close
Or staring way too long.
Please learn to keep a proper social distance. At least 3 feet please.
And piece and the rest of wunna when you see scantily clad women of voumptious proportions please learn to AVERT your eyes.
Averting ones eyes is not that too difficult you know.
@pieceuhderockyeahright September 22, 2015 at 9:50 PM “Have a daughter who has voumptious proportions who carries her offspring to school while scantily clad revealing pudenda hairs? And would you ** be disposed to giving de old man and Baffy her particulars of daily perambulation (being prolix) so that we can meet her in equal state of dress with the head of the water hose exposed tomorrow morning?
And if as usual she is carrying her legal firearm do you and Baffy still wish to meet with her?
@ ac
You wrote that you ADVISE me “not to waddle in shiite, just guh long down the street and when I see as act like I never see ac.”
So, yuh mean that when I see shiite, just guh long down the street and pretend that I ain’t see it. Thanks for the advice, AC
Yuh know confession god fuh de soul and admitting is de first step to recovery. Wuh AC, wunnuh just confess and admit to wuh all ah we pun BU know a’ready……………. that all uh wunnah is pure SHIITE.
@pieceuhderockyeahright September 22, 2015 at 10:30 PM “You choose a man because of a bulge in his pants”
And you and the other poor unfortunate men with the bulges in your pants couldn’t say no to the “slut” [your word not mine]. Even after you married the non-slut [your word not mine] wunna still smelling ’round the Garrison when the night come.
Why?
And you go long comfortable knowing that your child is being raised by a slut [your word not mine]
Jokers.
I thought the headmaster was very disrespectful to womenand the mothers taking their children to school. How dare he? At least the kids are being taken to school! Where are the men and their state of undress? It’s just another way of policing women. He should look closely at himself and his issues around around women. Mr Headmaster your mouth should be washed out with soap. He wouldn’t dare talk to me like that! He needs a lesson in effective communication, actually I take that back he wants a few choice bad words.
Oh shiite!!!!
Bushie don’t care what King Solomon said…
There MUST be some sensible women SOMEWHERE….
….DONNA !!!
….PAT !!!!
It is evident that this article elicits from you some real and present truths
On the one hand I have to admit to some things which my adjectives do not hide voluptuous etc.
I could easily have said female member as I made the point that you and others who are so Jung ho on female rights, have glibly shirked the responsibility of wise choices that you made, and continue to make, with us “scum males”.
The article speaks to a headmaster talking about what he thinks as inappropriate dress befitting of a whore house and not a school ground and he remarks on mumpsey looking body parts which most men enjoy seeing, in other circumstances, and proposed that to be inappropriate in the settings of a school.
Aversion of the eyes as you suggest is not an option and your 3 foot personal space rules truly must be a scholarly jest on your part.
We play the blame game conveniently and have played it so long that, what was the standard of your parents and grandparents, or should I say what was more commonly practiced as a norm before has, over the course of the years, in no small part due to this suggested “aversion of the eyes” which you propose here, augmented by “standing back 3 feet” now has become the modus of the day.
You and your group of new ethics promoters have relinquished ground to the Enemy Within and stand like a deer stupefied by the beams of an oncoming car while face by approaching mumps.
We could enter a discourse on going to the Garrison at night or Barry going to X child mother in the day and after a while slinging mud at the sexes we come back to the common denominator of what does a man or woman do outside of your famous Sunday got to Church outings.
The whore at the Garrison is no different than the bank teller who, after seeing my bank balance, calls to invite me to her home or her girlfriend ‘s two bedroom apartment because the teller is married.
After a while we either resign ourselves to the vanity and constancy of the pattern of, like the headmaster we openly say stop.
But then again as I have long known thou art omniscient god (purposed lowercase) and, even though the headmaster was a foopster in his you it cannot be that he has seen the error of his ways like Barry, no sir unless thou give him leave, he must avert his eyes and stand at the prescribed distance.
No wonder your men leave the non sluts like you? As you hover between this hot and cold philosophy, and, being deemed lukewarm, you are spat out for the Garrison?
@Simple Simon
The comment about the role the woman plays in the raising of our children is important in the context of a high number of single parent families headed by women. You are trivializing the problem but you are entitled to your opinion. No wonder we are in the state of disarray. Whenever an authority figure tries to exercise discipline or highlight a problem we push the other side of the issue all the while deterioration in values continue. We cant have our cake and eat it too.
Mr.C
There is a African proverb which says that it takes a village to raise child. And the same can be said for society as a whole; It takes a society to raise a child.
So if one child fails to measure up to the conventional standards of acceptance of a given society; then it can be concluded that that society as a whole has failed that child.
Now if the law allotted the headmaster and his staff the right to assume the role of the parent in the absence of the parent. Who then is in better position to inculcate what the headmaster seems to think is missing in the child, but the headmaster and his staff.
And if the home, school and church are the three institutions which exercises a lasting influence upon the malleable mind of the child, and the headmaster commands the authority of one them, then why is he worrying about the declining moral order of society, when he is in the best position to leave his postive mark?
The headmaster really reminds of the members of a certain political party who are bare talk, but little or no active involvement in the process to seek the change their hoping for.
Trivializing what! the headmaster should be looking at the positive side and be happy to see that these mothers are actively involved in securing the safety and protection of their children during after school hours which in itself is a playing a positive role in child raising,
The headmaster talks about what the children are seeing in the mothers attire but what he said was far worse in the presence of the children by his lucid and uncalled description of what he perceives as prerogative attire that the mothers wore.
Really what did he take a stance for /against mothers wearing strapless dresses that shows visible under arm hair growth ,well give me a break now hair growth has become a topic for things immoral behave,really! what next! ! next he proceeds in his fanatical outlandish outburst to take a glancing blow way down below the coverings of the female vagina where it is properly covered up and out of view of the child (expect that of the headmaster) to give a detail response of what he sees as a camel toe, lol. the head master summary of the female vagina speaks of one with a sickening and perverted mind.
In my book these mothers should be applauded as role mothers actively engaging in carrying out their duties to be mothers instead of being taken to task for underarm growth and tight pants,
The headmaster miss the forest for the trees or in this case maybe the headmaster is too busy looking at bush,
David, first off great placement of Bob’s ‘Pimpers Paradise’. Excellent musical rendition as a backdrop to the principal’s thesis.
Did you ever facilitate Simple Simon’s request to transcribe the voice file? Based on her completely illogical comments she clearly did not hear them properly and/or cannot understand them. Because to take the Head’s remarks as related to the management of his school (“nobody gine say that ?? allow this”…”this slackness got to stop”) and criticize him like she did is absolutely illogical.
Simple, I suspect your father was surely a smart man so I surmise that knew he could walk the first mile and drive the next ten in the hot bus denuded of his tie and jacket and only outfit himself as the court demanded on entry to those hot rooms.
I further surmise that he likely outfitted himself in some form of jacket or other Sunday best for church… or was he not so inclined!
The point being we all ‘grew up stupid under the union jack’ for generations re too much clothing for our tropical climate, thus to suggest that as a mitigating actor for ‘breast handing out’ in a flimsy top is painfully insulting and ludicrous.
Seriously, @Simple how are the principal’s remarks about the the standards he wants at his school different to the standards we had at schools in our youth (and which decent people still maintain)?
How does one Head Master’s rant give rise to his being a misogynist or validate your calls for women’s right to social slackness to wit: “Women dress scantily for 2 reasons….Women with little education and few options know that being the outside woman..”
What in the name of good commonsense does the Head’s remarks have to do wid “outside women” ?
Looka, here are a few transcribed snippets from the HM:
“I have seen so many of those things that I could (forget them now??)…the damn slackness it done today…don’t come in here or I will embarrass you…you can’t come to an institution in tights…all their vagina printing out…you know what the boys say [they say] you mother went in here with this fat thing in front of she, how I gine punish a boy for telling the truth.”
Nothing more that straightforward Bajan pronouncements.
But Simple I agree completely with one thing you said above…
“Stupssseee!!!!!!!!!!!!”
That you got spot on.
What men have got to realize and accept is what women are projecting in their attitude is what can be described as a “rebellion” or a wage of war on men coming from the yesteryear’s when woman were ruled and totally controlled by the dictates of men
Woman today has taken a hardened view that their lives can not be contained and controlled by any one especially the male, In effect this is what can be described as a backlash or an overt message being sent to men, in many ways some by style or way of speech
Men getting all pissed off at woman and bent out of control not going to change nothing but give woman more of an opportunity to tell the men. Boo “You are not going have the control any more”
Sadly but truthfully yesterday past of men influence on woman has reaped the kind of fruit that might leave a sour taste in the male mouth ,however the male has no one else to blame but themselves as women move themselves out of a docile world that men created for them and become more asserted and defiant
Take it or leave it woman would not be cowardice or selfservant to what men think or feel be it in the clothes they wear or any choices the make for themselves, those days are gone “Boo” those days are gone,
@Caswell, thank you for the September 22, 2015 at 10:34 PM post. That was a gem of knowledge.
You are a strange bird I would have to say because you display a grasp of some arcane (to the average Joe, anyhow) legal regs and an overall grasp of law yet as far as I am aware you are not articled to represent anyone in a court of law.
I mention that from the perspective of knowledge and earning power against the backdrop of that $120K cited by the senior counsel Smith as lost fees.
Now of course that was the corporate side but you seem to have certain aspects of this law thing overstand real proper so it seems you love the subject matter and could be a maguffy across all areas.
Again excellent nuggets of info.
I am beginning to wonder if there is indeed some truth in Franz Fanon’s comments in ” The Wretched of the Earth” that when a society begins to flounder it is reflected in the attire and behaviour of women.
@Dee Word
We have the same suspects who like to oppose for opposing sake.
If many of these idiot women (note mothers and not parents used) would attend PTA meetings the headmaster would not have to issue his call of desperation.
We have a big problem in Barbados and to be honest it is difficult to see how it will be redressed.
Are “we” going to address the issue of the tasteless disrespectful comments from the headmaster about mothers? or are “we ” going to obscure the issue by use straw man tactics and attacks on woman. the usual modus operandi of placing blame on woman for all the social ills,
@Dee Word
Further, many of us were raised by only women for one reason or another back in the day and one quality that will be remembered is, it didn’t matter how poor the household, standards were maintained – brush your teeth, haircut, girls hair nicely plaited, rub lard oil on the scruffy feet, clip fingernails with a scissors etc. Always standards!
Nowadays what we see is any Principal who tries to establish standards we get push bash from a society where ANYTHING is now acceptable. There is a reason why Bajans living overseas sent their children back to Barbados to be raised. And our little country was all the better for it.
Oh and btw David i guess u have never been to a PTA meeting where the mothers attendance outnumbers that of fathers….. the presence of men are dismal.
@Bush Tea
The Principal on any day has to deal with a myriad of problems in the school. The voice note is just one example of a headmaster using ‘assembly’ to address an issue. For a couple jackasses on BU to extrapolate the issue to deadbeat dads exposes a level of hignorance which knows no bounds.
I never thought the day would come that I agreed with al haraam.
He wrote: “The headmaster really reminds of the members of a certain political party who are bare talk, but little or no active involvement in the process to seek the change their hoping for.”
Barbados is presently confronted (and affected) by matters relating to the economy, crime, housing, government and the private sector ignoring industrial relations process, agriculture, child abuse and other social issues, just to name a few.
And we have Sinckler, Adriel Brathwaite, Kellman, Esther Byer, Estwick, and Steve Blackett as ministers that are responsible for the relevant ministries mandated to address these issues, and so far they have been unable to do anything but “talk.”
So yes, I agree that “the headmaster really reminds me of the members of a certain political party who are bare talk, but little or no active involvement in the process to seek the change their hoping for.”
The “bare talk” characterization is not applicable to Stuart.
No David.the forum.which. the.headmaster used was wrong and inappropriate especially when some of those children present might have felt embarrassed at the comments of the headmaster directed to the mothers. There is a place and time where such issues can be tabled or flushed out without having to resort to low blows that in effect inflamed rather than resolve
Bush Tea September 22, 2015 at 11:45 PM #
Oh shiite!!!!
Bushie don’t care what King Solomon said…
There MUST be some sensible women SOMEWHERE….
….DONNA !!!
….PAT !!!!
You really should clear up your bias. You need to define sensible by your terms since only two women in your book fit your definition.
Pieces,
Not missing. Just been reading silently. Be back soon.
David, re your “If many of these idiot women [and men] would attend PTA meetings the headmaster would not have to issue his call of desperation.” Amen.
And “Nowadays what we see is any Principal who tries to establish standards we get push bash from a society where ANYTHING is now acceptable. ” Speak, young-man let the truth rain down.
“For a couple jackasses on BU to extrapolate the issue to deadbeat dads exposes a level of hignorance which knows no bounds.” Hallelujah and give praise to the value of free speech for clearly we see their hignorance !
What those without eyes to see or ears to hear really in this case, is the missing standards you so perfectly highlight.
The body parts on display by the women are just as heinous as the ‘rass-h***’ and other choice use of English by other parents on school grounds and in the homes. These behaviours can morph into the more serious stuff of a parent coming on school premises to ‘put some lashes’ on a teacher or other parent.
Bad things were always on the ‘net’ or TV or right there in the village but great parents still established and maintained their standards.
As Pieces said previously sometimes one has to personalize these issues to illicit some reason from the illogical naysayers so I make bold to say that neither AC (the one whose Dad suffered the racial ignominy but made well overseas) or Simple Simon with the hardworking skills Dad ever saw their parent behave with disrespect and disdain to one of their teachers in the normal course of life, but yet here they are with this nonsensical and shameful palaver.
Fah real!!
I somehow get the impression that some of you think that this is a politics game of “being friends with everybody all of the time”!
We live in shame and blame times in a shame and blame country.
Is that so hard to understand?
A certain politician decided to run a football competition some time ago in the Pine and promised certain prizes to the winners.
That politicians conscience like that of Michael Carrington or Fumble Stuart and his Leper was not so disposed to doing the right thing that it self-actuated him to give the fellows their prizes, their $250,000 or fire the scunts of the obviously profiteering ministers involved in the Cahill Cowan Scam.
Because people like you have no shame what this “court of Public Opinion” does is that it brings the really serious persons here to blog a piece with the supporting documentation to show the nastiness that wunna is practicing.
If a fellow at the school got talk fuh my scantily dressed muddah I gine do three things
1) I gine hide every PTA meeting invitation so that she will not bring her mumps to my school
2) Behave so good and get so many good marks that there is no need for her to bring her mumps to my school
3) Pray that my behind get big really quick so that I do not have to have her and her mumps accompany me to school
THe are scarring the “chilrun” (are is reading well) indelibly and you are talking ingrunce bout he should not talk about it there and all that sorta jobby
So the priest at Abundant Life must not talk about gang violence at the funeral of a young hoodlum he is interring, the headmaster must not talk about mumps at his PTA meetings and we must not talk about Clare Cowan and her defaulting mortgage, Michael Carry-away-a-ton of he client money, to wit $250,000, Leroy the Leper and his select account at the Central Bank because according to your nitwit reasoning, it is not the right forum
Artax, even when you agree with al harram you still seem to kick the donkey real hard, though…
With your quite sharp reasoning can you or anyone help me understand how a principle can be accused of so wrongly using the forum of his school assembly or other gathering to lay out his rules and expectations. He is the CEO at his school, is he not?
Can you or anyone help me understand this: “…the .headmaster…was wrong and inappropriate especially when some of those children present might have felt embarrassed at the comments of the headmaster directed to the mothers.”
Now the man did not call no one by name but yet he, himself with his mouth embarrass a mother to her child whereas that same mother by her loose attire who left her home and attended at the school premises by her own accord caused nary a moment of shame, concern or despair for her child.
How would you describe that? As chop-logic, insanity, stupidity or could that be called a ‘Sturartism’?
I know I can’t get a credible response from the author so I reaching out to anyone you can deal wid vapid mouthings.
You talking nonsene the fact being that a past which once belonged to an era ofmale dominance no longer exist.Then again in reference to the social norms and values of yesteryear the culture has change chartering a course of selfreliance women has taken over and in charge of homemakers! roles which men once controlled.Women have come from a world of frustration to a world of liberation and there life style is part of that agenda
Yes women has made a big jump from docile sending messages with a purpose to detach all from a past riddle with hurt and pain
In the long run what emerges would be a dialogue of understanding between men and women
An event which is indelibly etched in my memory took place at the primary school I attended.A standard 7 boy put his fist on a teacher at the school athletic competition.The headmaster summoned this boys parents to the school and in their presence brought the boy into the ‘nave’of the school,addressed all of us,made the boy apologize to the teacher and then with every muscle in his 6’4″ frame poured some lashes in the boy’s back which on the surface appeared to have had its effect.The boy’s father then called for the headmaster’s strap and put some more licks in the youngster.He gave no more trouble after that.
Another twist to the discussion is the reality children are being thought by about 70% females. It is ironic we have a male principal asking women to respect yufself!
de Ingrunt Word September 23, 2015 at 8:22 AM #
De Word, in response to this issue, a few irrational individuals are presenting what may be termed as illogical “non arguments.”
Let’s be reasonable, supposed one of these same mothers was selected for an interview and arrived at the business establishment dressed in a manner as described by the principal. The Human Resources Manager, while in the process of informing her that her attire was unsuitable, prevented her from being part of the selection process. (in other words, “tell she leff the peeple place).”
Would it not be irrational for anyone to argue about “single mothers”, “women rights”, “absent fathers” or that no one understands “the economic pressures women go through to salvage a meal and put clothes on children,” when COMMON SENSE and PROTOCOL dictates that an individual should dress appropriately when conducting business?
This habit of women entering school premises scantily dressed escalated to the extent that principals of nursery, primary and secondary schools decided “enough was enough” and placed signs at the school specifying a preferred dress code.
For example, Barbados Community College may be considered a tertiary level learning institution. We assume that adults who are expected to be reasonable and mature in their thinking would attend BCC. However, the authorities still found it necessary to “enforce a dress code” and remind students of the code’s guidelines.
If you were to read page 24 of BCC’s 2014 to 2015 Students’ Handbook, under the heading “Dress Code,” you will see the following:
“Dress Code
Students are not permitted to wear:
1. shorts more than three (3) inches above the knees except in the gym
2. sleeveless or spaghetti strap tops
3. deeply cut sleeveless blouses for female or sleeveless vests for males
4. outfits displaying midriffs or exposed backs
5. skirts more than three (3) inches above the knees
6. hats, flip-flops or slippers to class or in the library
7. male students are not permitted to expose boxer shorts.”
“In addition to the above, students are asked to note that they must adhere to all stipulated dress code guidelines as outlined in Divisional/Department handbooks or information sheets.”
If you were to peruse UWI’s Students’ Handbook, you will read in the General Regulations section:
“Normal Dress: Students are required when attending classes or other formal business on University premises to be neatly and appropriately dressed.”
Wuh, shiite, this is an institution wuh part nuff old people does attend, and UWI still found it necessary to enforce a dress code.
My point still remains.
If Ronald Jones had expressed a view similar to that of this principal, the ACs would have a completely different perspective on this issue.
Nepotism, croneyism, and allegiance to the party irrespective of the name is still brown nosing Artaxerxes
You, David Bush Tea, Hants, De Ingrunt Word, SSS and others who have weighed in but the ole man cant remember, just calling it like it is
In all things we must give praise…
Bushie COULD have made the mistake ….in his youthful days (when testosterone over ruled brain) of getting involved with someone like AC…..
..a fate worse than a thousand deaths…..
BBE is merciful.
AC
I totally agree with your sentiment that there is a certain class of men out there and probably through no fault of their own, who are intimidated by a strong independent intelligent woman.
And these sentient creatures who are clothed in human flesh have been taught to think in some twisted and dysfunctional way that the woman is to be chained to the stove and nail to the kitchen sink, in addition to performing her conjugal duties.
There is a another class of men much like myself who respect and admire the strong independent woman, who does not have to surrender her independent and sense of self because some man thinks that just because he pay the bills, and has those things which hangs low below believes that it ought to be so.
@dompey
What does your last comment have to do with women entering the school premises in spandex and showing camel toe?
JA
David
Probably little but I am adding my three cents to AC’s comment above!
The blogmaster invites you to join and add value to the discussion.