With obesity on the rise, one would think it common sense to be in support of physical education throughout high school. However, there is a lot more to this issue than first meets the eye. Looking at the big picture, one can see that PE does not belong in high schools.
Schools cannot force children to be fit. They can impress upon them the importance of exercise and make the available sports known. However, PE is not teaching anyone to be fit. Everyone knows, before high school, how to play volleyball and softball and whatever else. (In fact, my PE teacher did not even explain the rules to us, just assumed we knew them from middle school.) If someone was interested in a sport, they would have joined it. By high school, it's rather too late to pick up a competitive team sport. As such, PE is not bringing anything new to the table.
Now, one could argue that PE itself is making students exercise, but this is doubtful--if not downright false. Schools can make them play sports and "exercise," but they cannot make students put in effort. If they aren't putting in their full effort, what good is it doing? Not much at all.
Focusing on "traditional" exercise options like team sports and running only scares people away. But one can't very well go hiking in PE. Or fence. Or kayak. In this way, PE is incredibly limited and drives students away from anything that might be deemed "exercise."
The main reason PE doesn't belong in high schools, though, is that it eats up valuable space in the student's schedule. Even without sacrificing a period for PE, I am not able to fit in all the classes I find interesting. With all the other requirements, students are already severely limited in their choice of electives. PE is, to put it bluntly, a complete waste of time, and I am incredulous that schools would even consider to further restrict their students' schedules with it.
Maybe without those extra three years of "physical education" someone could take psychology. Or astronomy. Creative writing. Personal finance. Another language. But instead of actually learning (which is what schools used to be for), the student would be forced to spend 90 minutes sitting in the gym. Ze could use that time for homework, studying, or even researching a topic outside of hir assignments. No, ze has to play basketball.
Schools are for learning. High school in particular is a very important time for one's education, what with college (or careers) just a few years away. Students need to be putting their time and energies into classes relevant to their futures. People can easily find ways to exercise on their own, whether it be playing sports through a club or doing aerobics by themselves. Most people, though, will have a very hard time learning on their own. Therefore, high schools need to remember their purpose: primers for college and the work force, not fitness trainers.
Obesity is a serious problem here, I don't deny that. PE is not going fix obesity though. In the meantime, ignorance is also a serious problem, and extra academics could help. Lack of creative thought is a serious problem, and extra fine arts could help. So instead of schools putting all their time and money into an area where it won't do any good, why don't they focus on the places that could actually benefit from it?
10 August 2009
01 August 2009
Alone, But Not Lonely
Today I was forced to attend the funeral of someone I barely knew. I "had" to go because it was for my great aunt and godmother, never mind that I had never bonded with her. I made it through the whole speech part and most of lunch. But as my mother lagged behind, saying goodbye to everyone, I started to get antsy. Everyone was standing and moving about, people were squeezing past me and bumping into me left and right. Finally my mother took pity on me and gave me the keys, so that I could wait in the car for her.
This is one of many hundreds of examples of the daily suffering of extreme introverts: loners. An introvert is a person who prefers solitude; a loner is an introvert who actively seeks solitude out. Being a loner does not make one "disordered." Introversion, even in its extremes, is a perfectly healthy preference. However, the extraverted society that we live in would not want anyone believing that!
We are indoctrinated, from early childhood until death, that socializing is Good and solitude is Bad. "Oh, look at that poor boy, eating all by himself with no one to talk to!" the extravert says. But what the extravert doesn't know--indeed, what ze can't know--is that the boy is currently pondering the nature of reality and has no wish to replace this line of thought with glib comments about the weather.
Not only is solitude not harmful, it is much more healthy than socialization. In solitude, one can introspect and discover oneself. This invariably leads to high self-esteem and confidence. One becomes impervious to peer pressure, trends, and the like. There is a whole inner world to explore, and most extraverts don't even know it exists! I rather pity them. What an empty life they must live, not truly knowing themselves....
Now that we all agree introversion is not a disease or disorder, we must discuss loners specifically. Most introverts require some amount of socialization, even if relatively infrequent. But what about the people who don't require any? What about the people who are healthy and happy without any? What about loners?
To start, let us go through three basic types of relationships: friends, partners, and family.
FRIENDS:
It is possible for a loner to have friends, however it wouldn't be a typical relationship. Perhaps they only see each other a few times a year, or only email. Because a loner is not willing to put much of their time towards a friendship, ze is not likely to maintain more than one or two. A loner probably wouldn't bother with acquaintances because those relationships do not offer the depth of conversation that a loner requires to stay interested. So: a loner CAN have friends, but not in the conventional sense.
PARTNERS:
A loner would not typically have any sort of life partner. Loners live their own lives and wouldn't want another person tagging along all the time, even if they loved that person. Loners don't have to be aromantic or asexual or anything, but they might act as if they were. If a loner did fall for someone and started a relationship, it wouldn't be the generic "together-forever" partners for life. For example, they probably wouldn't live together. Kind of similar to the friendship styles. Of course, unless they are both loners, this sort of relationship is hard to maintain. Hence, loners are extremely unlikely to have partners.
FAMILY:
A loner desires no bonds to other people, yet ze is forced into them from before birth--bonds to hir family. This is a tricky situation that doesn't always end in peaceful understanding, as you can imagine. The loner may start off trying to keep up with family, but it inevitably becomes too much. It just takes too much time and effort to maintain these bonds, and they eventually decay. A loner shouldn't feel at all sad about this though; ze does not want to be bonded to others, regardless of genetic similarity. (If a loner considers certain family members "friends" too, they might better fall under that category--infrequent communication, etc.)
Loners have oddly contrasting places in the world of fiction. They are the school shooters, dangerous, cold. Yet they are also the quirky, bright, if "overly private," catches in romantic comedies. The first is obviously not true. The second starts off good, but ends in horror, with the "loner" suddenly coming out of hir shell and sharing hir life with the main character. So if fiction doesn't have good examples, what are loners really like?
Loners, living outside the trends of the mainstream, often hold strange beliefs. Also, spending most of their time away from people, loners may develop strange mannerisms. This can come across as being quirky, different, weird, etc. Loners are inherently hard to get to know, making them mysterious to some. Because loners keep to themselves, extraverts may come to the conclusion they're shy or (my favorite) "quiet." When loners reject attempts at small talk, they often come across as cold, condescending, and aloof.
These are all just society's views on loners. Each and every loner is different. Some are guided by pure logic, others by personal values. Some like working with details, others notice overarching patterns. Some are very orderly, others are spontaneous. All they have in common is their solitude, and the understanding of themselves that that solitude gives them.
Here is when the extravert speaks up: "But socializing is necessary for personal growth!" Ha! Excuse me for not seeing how senseless talking makes me a complete person. Maybe that's just me. Even if it does give you some sort of personal growth, is it in the direction I want? I would rather learn, explore, and discover on my own, than get "social skills" through shallow conversations with people I barely know.
Before you come along claiming that all humans are social beings so I must be wrong! consider that I have introspected for many years before coming to my present stance. I have drawn on my own experiences and feelings, as well as those of fellow loners. I know myself, and I know what I want and need. I am not unhappy or unhealthy. I am a loner.
This is one of many hundreds of examples of the daily suffering of extreme introverts: loners. An introvert is a person who prefers solitude; a loner is an introvert who actively seeks solitude out. Being a loner does not make one "disordered." Introversion, even in its extremes, is a perfectly healthy preference. However, the extraverted society that we live in would not want anyone believing that!
We are indoctrinated, from early childhood until death, that socializing is Good and solitude is Bad. "Oh, look at that poor boy, eating all by himself with no one to talk to!" the extravert says. But what the extravert doesn't know--indeed, what ze can't know--is that the boy is currently pondering the nature of reality and has no wish to replace this line of thought with glib comments about the weather.
Not only is solitude not harmful, it is much more healthy than socialization. In solitude, one can introspect and discover oneself. This invariably leads to high self-esteem and confidence. One becomes impervious to peer pressure, trends, and the like. There is a whole inner world to explore, and most extraverts don't even know it exists! I rather pity them. What an empty life they must live, not truly knowing themselves....
Now that we all agree introversion is not a disease or disorder, we must discuss loners specifically. Most introverts require some amount of socialization, even if relatively infrequent. But what about the people who don't require any? What about the people who are healthy and happy without any? What about loners?
To start, let us go through three basic types of relationships: friends, partners, and family.
FRIENDS:
It is possible for a loner to have friends, however it wouldn't be a typical relationship. Perhaps they only see each other a few times a year, or only email. Because a loner is not willing to put much of their time towards a friendship, ze is not likely to maintain more than one or two. A loner probably wouldn't bother with acquaintances because those relationships do not offer the depth of conversation that a loner requires to stay interested. So: a loner CAN have friends, but not in the conventional sense.
PARTNERS:
A loner would not typically have any sort of life partner. Loners live their own lives and wouldn't want another person tagging along all the time, even if they loved that person. Loners don't have to be aromantic or asexual or anything, but they might act as if they were. If a loner did fall for someone and started a relationship, it wouldn't be the generic "together-forever" partners for life. For example, they probably wouldn't live together. Kind of similar to the friendship styles. Of course, unless they are both loners, this sort of relationship is hard to maintain. Hence, loners are extremely unlikely to have partners.
FAMILY:
A loner desires no bonds to other people, yet ze is forced into them from before birth--bonds to hir family. This is a tricky situation that doesn't always end in peaceful understanding, as you can imagine. The loner may start off trying to keep up with family, but it inevitably becomes too much. It just takes too much time and effort to maintain these bonds, and they eventually decay. A loner shouldn't feel at all sad about this though; ze does not want to be bonded to others, regardless of genetic similarity. (If a loner considers certain family members "friends" too, they might better fall under that category--infrequent communication, etc.)
Loners have oddly contrasting places in the world of fiction. They are the school shooters, dangerous, cold. Yet they are also the quirky, bright, if "overly private," catches in romantic comedies. The first is obviously not true. The second starts off good, but ends in horror, with the "loner" suddenly coming out of hir shell and sharing hir life with the main character. So if fiction doesn't have good examples, what are loners really like?
Loners, living outside the trends of the mainstream, often hold strange beliefs. Also, spending most of their time away from people, loners may develop strange mannerisms. This can come across as being quirky, different, weird, etc. Loners are inherently hard to get to know, making them mysterious to some. Because loners keep to themselves, extraverts may come to the conclusion they're shy or (my favorite) "quiet." When loners reject attempts at small talk, they often come across as cold, condescending, and aloof.
These are all just society's views on loners. Each and every loner is different. Some are guided by pure logic, others by personal values. Some like working with details, others notice overarching patterns. Some are very orderly, others are spontaneous. All they have in common is their solitude, and the understanding of themselves that that solitude gives them.
Here is when the extravert speaks up: "But socializing is necessary for personal growth!" Ha! Excuse me for not seeing how senseless talking makes me a complete person. Maybe that's just me. Even if it does give you some sort of personal growth, is it in the direction I want? I would rather learn, explore, and discover on my own, than get "social skills" through shallow conversations with people I barely know.
Before you come along claiming that all humans are social beings so I must be wrong! consider that I have introspected for many years before coming to my present stance. I have drawn on my own experiences and feelings, as well as those of fellow loners. I know myself, and I know what I want and need. I am not unhappy or unhealthy. I am a loner.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)