back in the 70's. I included an "affective education" lesson for 15 minutes each day. They were lessons on right from wrong in interacting with others. Doubt that would be allowed today, but I don't know for sure.

in the 1950s, too. I don't know if such things are taught today, though. However, without the lessons being taught as a matter of course at home, it's difficult to change the paths of children in school, I think.

It's my sense of things that we are a less polite society today than we were 50 years ago, in general. However, in the 50's things like racism, misogyny, and religious intolerance were, perhaps, worse than today. I'm not certain about that, but so it seems to me. I can look back clearly, on my own life, but I see the world as it is today through different eyes than I did 50 years ago, I'm sure.

I do remember, however, a copy of Emily Posts etiquette book on the shelf in our living room as a child. Since I was a rabid reader, I read it cover to cover sometime around age 11. Lots of good advice in there, really. What I learned often helped me as I got older and started interacting with people who weren't blue collar like my own home was. When I was 17, I escorted the daughter of our local congressman to her debutante party. She wasn't a girlfriend, but I had been a guest in their home from time to time, and apparently behaved better than some of her other friends. So, that was an interesting experience for me.

was that women did not have orgasms and did not enjoy sex.

That men were the instigators of sex [in marriage women about women only of course] and that was necessary for procreation.

I think that the books that came out, written by women about women began to let us know that we were taught all wrong about female sexuality.

I remember learning from women what it means to mutually enjoy sex. It was very liberating to me to know that women enjoy sex too and can be the instigators.

I think people like Trump either did not get the message I did or ignored it.

I got lots of instructions from my father on what not to do when it came to romantic relationships, but I learned about actual relationships from my girlfriends. Apparently, they had not gotten the word about not enjoying sex and that sort of thing.

Actually, though, there were some books written in the 1940s about sexual relationships that didn't have the message you mention. My parent had one of those in the house. I read it cover to cover when I was 14. I can't remember the title, but it was pretty straightforward and not at all dismissive of women's role in sex being equal and mutual.

It was my father who told me that only enthusiastic consent was real consent. He didn't put it in those words, but I got the message just fine. He was right, of course. There was no shortage of enthusiasm in my life, fortunately.

your parents also practiced what they preached. What those around you do matters even more than what they say. Those of us who had or have parents like we did are the lucky ones.

is useless. It is by example that parents most effectively teach. I feel very, very lucky to have had my parents. They're 92 years old now, and still dispensing wisdom. I talk to them every afternoon on the phone, and still learn from them.

ine are gone but they knew we loved and appreciated them

Every day is precious, it seems to me. I began calling them every day about five years ago. It's sort of a high point of the day for both me and them now. We never know what we'll talk about, but we always find something that fills up 30 to 45 minutes. Lots of old stories from the past and discussions of what's happening in the world, but that's pretty much how conversations have always gone with them.

I'm aware that this cannot continue forever, for sure. I will miss that interaction when it is no longer possible. A lot.

It's a wonderful thoughtful act.

My husband and I made the conscious decision when we became parents that our disciplinary style would be a mix of natural consequences, proportional consequences (time outs, grounding, community service, etc.), open discussion, and modeling.

We have three teenage boys now (13, 16, and 19). It wasn't until I read your post that I realized I honestly cannot recall the last time we had to "punish" any of them. They aren't perfect children, but they are respectful young men who know exactly what behavior is expected of them. They push limits from time to time, sure. But they don't go blasting past them. More like exploratory efforts easily thwarted. LOL!

Cannot agree with you enough that modeling and dialogue is critical to raising people who genuinely respect their fellow human beings...and have the assertiveness to insist on being treated with respect in return. We always saw our children as individuals worthy of our respect. I have the strongest suspicions that Trump wasn't remotely respect by his parents and watched them continuously disrespect others as well. You don't have that much hatred inside of you if it isn't taught.

Kudos to your parents!

You're not alone. A lot of parents today understand how to raise their children, just as they did when my parents raised theirs. Sadly, there are also many now, as then, who do not understand or do not put it into practice.

Thanks so much for your reply.

Most of my teacher colleagues say that one real problem with their kids is, as they put it, "no filter." they lack humility, see no reason to abide by rules like civility or decorum. They say what they think, however rude. They're acutely aware of charges of racism, for the most part. To say that Jaquan's skin is dark is, to their mind, racist; to assume Juan speaks Spanish is racist, but to assume that he doesn't speak Spanish is racist. There's huge areas they avoid. Matters sexual, financial, personal aren't among them.


This isn't true for all the kids. It's true for those who live in the $500k and above houses, and for those in cheap housing. The two ends of the spectrum.

Now, a linguist, Labov, back in the '60s and '70s made an important observation on some matters of explicit codes in English in some cities. These were things r-ful pronunciations in New York. He found that low-class and upper-class speakers had no use for final r in a syllable. Things like "car" versus "cah", "floo-uh" versus "floor. He looked at whites for this, and found that men were less r-ful then women, but what mattered most was what the prestige standard was, what the social norm for "proper" people was, when they were growing up and young adults. If you had pretensions of social mobility, if you weren't solid in your social status, you held to the standard. If you were below such aspirations or you could do and say what you want and your standing was assured, you did what you wanted. Nothing to lose.

I know lots of adults who speak like Trump. Sexist, open with their racial attitudes (not always old-school racist, but not cautious and circumspect). Few have been to college; those that have are bosses and have power over those below them, but most are grunt workers. Notice the Labovian split again: those assured of their standing, those who few would call out for sexism or being too unconcerned about what people think, are at the extremes of social standing. Most say that Trump speaks like a teenager; for many of us, that's the last time we actually hung out with people from a fundamentally different social class. We've picked our group and stick to it, even feeling disgust when we have to mingle with "those people"--the group boundary may not be racial or ethnic, but it's still as strongly felt and prejudgment-based.

This is exactly the same patterns with the the kids, the teens. Those with "no filter" are low class, social target is a career at a grocery store or maybe fixing air conditioners; or with rich parents who have taught them they're essentially untouchable. They see no reason to abide by the "other's" social rules, and in fact often snidely derive satisfaction from breaking them and showing they just don't give a flying fig.

I really don't. It has to do with something completely different, I believe. My family was decidedly blue collar, but did not have any sort of slackened standards at all. On the other hand, some of the worst-behave youngsters in my age group were from families in a much higher social class.

I lived in a small town and, so, met people from every part of that community's social structure and interacted with all of them. I never saw any connection between social position and behavior, frankly. It varied from family to family and had nothing to do with economics or social class.

I doubt there is any difference today.

A society that until very recently devalued women. This societal sickness, this disease, still exists in many parts of the world.

Sometimes it's not enough to be taught well, or carefully, if you are receiving messages everywhere else that women are sexual meat to be evaluated by their cut.

Teach your children well? Yes. Yes indeed.

There are --systems--is the word that comes to mind,-- in place, historical systems, systems accepted as perfectly reasonable, that led to people like the abhorrent Donald Trump, systems that still need constant challenging.

That's why feminists dislike being told to "lighten up". We know, you see. We've always known what the ultimate result of 'lightening up" will be.

It was not my intent to suggest that anyone "lighten up."

from his own parenting, too, I have no doubt. I'm equally sure he passed those attitudes on to his sons. More's the freaking pity.

And Howard Stern? There's someone I cannot abide listening to for even a minute. A consummate asshole if there ever was one.

Opportunistic parasites with no redeeming qualities