Talk:Poisonous pedagogy

message: Transferred from German-English_translation_requests:
==== :de:Schwarze Pädagogik ====
*Corresponding English-language article: Poisonous pedagogy
*Worth doing because: the English version makes very little sense.
*Originally Requested by: User:Jackiespeel 8 March 2006
*Other notes: 
*Status: translated, ready for review/proofreading.  Chonak 02:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: *Corresponding English-language article: Poisonous pedagogy
*Worth doing because: the English version makes very little sense.
*Originally Requested by: User:Jackiespeel 8 March 2006
*Other notes: 
*Status: translated, ready for review/proofreading.  Chonak 02:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:de:Schwarze Pädagogik]] 

message: Thanks, 81.173.134.142, for adding the Kellogg link: a good observation.   About the Hays Code, could you expand that "see also" with a few words to show what part of the Production Code relates to this section?  Because of the length of the Production Code article, I think the connection isn't clear enough yet.  Again, thanks.   Chonak 04:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Without a few more words to show how the Production Code relates to this section I think it might confuse readers. -- Bookish 13:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Hays Code

message: The References section is sub-divided into "Books" and "Web pages." As it is a Wikipedia custom to include an "External links" section for links to external web pages, is there any reason why that change should not be made to this article? -- Bookish 14:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article format

message: Since I translated the article, the German version has (IMHO) improved the first paragraph as follows (my translation):
*Poisonous pedagogy is a designation for repressive child-raising methods from past centuries.   It is a basically negatively loaded umbrella concept, comprising behaviors and communication of a strongly manipulative or violence-prone character.
It may be good to rewrite the English first paragraph too, though I worry that the above text verges on POV.  (Hard to avoid it with this topic.)  Chonak 23:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have incorporated something approximating to the above in a new rewording of the introduction. Alarics (talk) 11:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

text: No, because that would imply that Wikipedia agrees with one side of the argument. If we say "... the repressive character of some forms of education based on violence", it implies that we agree that it is repressive and that those forms of education are based on violence. Alarics (talk) 23:51, 18 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: The quote in the second paragraph of after the subtitle "Historical background in Germany" made my heart sunk.  I consider it impossible to parent away a child's own will.  Having a will of your own is an inevitable consequence of being human.  At best, a person may be unsure about what he or she wants due to unaccostumedness to listening to his or her own emotions.  Also, some persons habitually refrain from telling what they want because they think that nobody will listen to them.  I think the wording was originally made by a psychologically highly ignorant person who mistook blind obedience for lack of will.  This leads to the question: is blind obedience really something good?  I don't think so since it can so easily be abused.  What I mean is that a blindly obedient person can easily be made to do things which are harmful to him or her.  The interests of different persons inevitably differ from each other.  What is good for one person might not be good for an other and the reverse.  Furthermore, parents don't always know what the best is for their child.  There are the obvious examples of mentally impaired, addicted or mentally ill parents failing to provide for their children's physical needs.  But even if the parents are able to provide for their child physically they may not be able to meet the child's physiological needs.  Also, there are plenty of examples of parents forcing their children to do things which they don't realise are good for the parents but not for their children.  Such examples include forced leisure activities, study programs and professions chosen by parents without asking about the wills of the "children" - which are often teenagers or even young adults - and arranged marriage.  Most of these appear to be done in ignorance of the very existence of differences of interests between family members.  However, some of them are probably done by parent unconsciously projecting their own unfulfilled childhood dreams on their children.  All in all these parents unintentionally make their children unhappy by making decisions for them which the children do better themselves.  Consequentially, it is necessary for all children to learn to make their own decisions.  In practise it means taking responsibility for more and more according to their growing mental capabilities.  Something authoritarian parenting tends to take far too little into account.
2009-12-08  Lena Synnerholm, Märsta, Sweden.
::All the above is beside the point. This page is not intended for our personal views on the substantive issue, only for discussing how the article might be improved. -- Alarics (talk) 12:34, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You may add such a note to the page, of course -- if you can cite a reliable source for it, but not if you are merely stating your view. You need to name a specific authority who has stated in writing that they consider it unattainable, and state where and when they wrote it. -- Alarics (talk) 14:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crackpot quote 

message: The following is pretty specific.  And I think at least some of it would make a good addition to our article.
John Bradshaw, Bradshaw On: The Family, page 8.
http://books.google.com/books?id=VmF-4cco9nMC&pg=PA7&dq=%22poisonous+pedagogy%22&hl=en&ei=ov9eTN-pN4aglAfO-M2zCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=%22poisonous%20pedagogy%22&f=false
.
.
‘3.  The child is held responsible for the anger of adults.
‘4.  Parents must always be shielded.
‘5.  The child’s life-affirming feelings pose a threat to the autocratic parent.
‘6.  The child’s will must be “broken” as soon as possible.’
.
-----------------------------------------------------------
And--hopefully!--there's the positive side of the street.  How to be a more constructive leader, etc.   FriendlyRiverOtter (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  'The child is held responsible for the anger of adults.' 

message: Why is Austrian Johanna Haarer not mentioned?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:45:4901:B049:B119:A79:5135:B0B8 (talk) 00:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Johanna Haarer  

message: Juvenal was a Roman, not a Greek.
76.19.63.222 (talk) 13:36, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. Fixed by Lumos3. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Juvenal was a Roman, not a Greek 

message: Hello, I am currently rewriting the German version of this article, and the outcome is quite different from the current English version. The reason for my rewriting was that most participants in popular child rearing discourses are not aware that poisonous pedagogy is not a scholarly term but a buzzword, that came up in the late 1970ies among psychoanalysis oriented left writers who advocated antiauthoritarian pedagogy. Both Rutschky and Miller had very limited awareness that child rearing is embedded in historical contexts, on the other hand Rutschy very strictly draws her sources from the pedadogy of Enlightenment and of Philanthropism. This has been critized, for very good reasons, for instance here: "alice+miller"+adorno&hl=de&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwinx56Tv5XfAhWFAXwKHcE-BsYQ6AEIODAD#v=onepage&q="alice%20miller"%20adorno&f=false. Greetings, --Stilfehler (talk) 15:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Context