The Upbringing of Girls

We are discussing the topic of "Boys and Girls" and their upbringing. In the framework of a project that studied the behavior of boys and girls, it turned out that they behave differently. For example, in a group where boys were leading a discussion, it was possible to develop a conversation among 15-20 kids, each of whom voiced his own opinion. But when we observed a group of girls, it turned out that active participation in the discussion took place in a group of five or six participants. If the number of girls in the group was larger, the discussion proceeded sluggishly. Could you explain why this is so?

Girls have more needs, and therefore they feel a greater emptiness and less fulfillment than boys. Besides, by Nature boys are not very talkative and do not like to argue. Women love to talk more. The revelation of Nature takes place in the woman, and conversation is a revelation. In our world she is constantly talking with her children, while the man is more occupied with work, whether mental or physical, and less with conversation.

Then why is it easier for girls to hold a discussion in small groups?

Because girls' needs, in anything in life, are more noticeable than those of boys. Men can sit silently and hardly speak at all.

So if I ask my husband why he doesn't talk to me, will he answer that this is his Nature? It's not that he doesn't talk to me at all — he simply answers in monosyllables, with difficulty.

And the woman is still offended that they don't talk to her.

For women, this is not called "talking." It is not enough for them.

Well, of course, they have a need to sit with a man and "talk about our relationship."

It's interesting that if you give boys some kind of stimulus — to play games or to crawl through an underground passage — they simply rush off to carry out the task, while girls don't much like this.

This is connected with the way our brain works, and not because we desire it or don't desire it. After all, in girls and boys completely different areas of the brain are responsible for speech and for actions.

Indeed, there is a difference. There are studies proving such differences in the development of the brain, and there are results confirming that women are better at the humanities. However, one should not think that these qualities are opposites, like black and white. In reality there are women who are inclined to act rather than to talk, that is, they talk less than the average indicator for women. And there are men whose professional activity is connected with speech: salespeople, psychologists, and also teachers, who have to talk all the time.

But their conversations are directed toward a goal, toward realization, more than those of women, who find pleasure or satisfaction in the very process of conversation.

In talking about something? Even if it does not lead to a final result?

No, but you can see how it happens: women's conversations can drag on for hours.

We are talking about upbringing, and we would like to know how to approach it correctly. Our goal is to build a human being, and it doesn't matter who is in front of us: a girl or a boy.

Of course, but each one must undergo correction in his own way.

So perhaps we should explain that the goal of upbringing is to be a human being and to arrive at complete perfection? And this applies equally to girls and to boys.

We see this from the example of the life of ancient tribes, and also of people who lived in the not-so-distant past: boys and girls played separately, some are drawn to one thing, others to another. And why shouldn't we go in accordance with Nature? It is said: "Educate the youth according to his way." Well, why does this have to be done by force? And on top of that, a boy and a girl are deliberately seated at the same desk. But why bring them together "head to head," contrary to Nature? They should meet in another place and for other purposes…

There is a point of view that among primitive tribes such a division really was correct, but today it's a sort of unisex (a universal style), as if we are all the same.

True, because the ancients followed the laws of Nature and did not impose an order by force. And today people can no longer find one another.

After all, we are not the same, are we?

No, and in just the same way we have a difference in perception. Even taking into account that we are not raising them but giving them an education. Why, then, do we seat them together for lessons in mathematics, physics, geography? Is there any benefit from this? After all, joint schooling does not allow either the girls or the boys to express themselves properly.

The idea of society, I think, is to bring about acquaintance and closeness. But you are saying that this leads neither to acquaintance nor to closeness?

No, it leads to disdain.

Because it does not allow each sex to develop its own individuality?

Of course! If you take them separately, then all the examples and methods could be conveyed to them in a different way. Let some draw cars and airplanes, and others draw dresses and dolls.

They do that anyway.

Yes, but you have to go in accordance with what they are accustomed to. In this way you will develop a human being, and not make something distorted and mechanical out of him.

It turns out that the idea is to let them develop according to their inclinations. And we will discover that their interests are, in essence, natural to them. And these are not at all some prejudices that have formed among us.

It's not a matter of prejudices, but of our foolishness, of the fact that we do not listen to Nature and do something, considering ourselves smarter than it. Now we see the results of this.

There are studies saying that there are differences in play, but only at the very earliest age. And for an older age no examinations are being conducted anymore, since the prevailing opinion is that we are the same.

How can it be that we are the same?

Indeed, there is no analysis of information about older children. I managed to find a good study conducted a year ago in Great Britain, where separate education has been customary from time immemorial. It was even part of English culture. Gradually they stopped raising children separately: out of three and a half million children, only two hundred thousand are raised separately. However, the examination showed that girls who studied separately achieved far greater success compared with those who studied together with boys. There is, evidently, some advantage in this. Scientists tried to explain it by their consciousness or by the method of teaching. They allow that perhaps the girls really did need a different method. And there was a very subtle hint there that girls in fact desire more joint activities and less competition, which forces them to keep silent and frightens them more.

By having a competition between the sexes, we put them into a tense state altogether: which boy is better, which girl is prettier compared with the others? This occupies them more than studying or anything else. What is it needed for?

We see from the studies that at the age of six or seven, girls prefer the company of girls, and boys the company of boys.

So why not raise them in accordance with this inclination? It turns out that first we do violence to Nature, and then we understand how unsuccessful this is.

We once happened to observe that when a certain floor was freed up, to which we were to move, several girls went in there. They entered some room, cleaned it, put it in order there, and turned it into their home. All of this happened within a very short time, without anyone's request. And they did it in a natural way. Maybe we simply need to let them build a home?

This is inherent in her by Nature, while the man must bring fulfillment there. Each of them has his own role, and by uniting together, the two bring perfection. That is why it is easier to raise a woman, and Nature has endowed her with almost everything she needs, except the intention to reach a lofty goal. The man needs to undergo great corrections, more extensive and heavier ones. That is why we naturally invest more in the young men.

The man needs to make more corrections, and the woman fewer. She needs to be restricted less. After all, she is essentially more ready for a corrected life. But both of them must attain mutual complementation.

We are observing a collective of children who receive integral upbringing, and we note that the boys enjoy spending the whole day here. They have adapted and love being in large groups all day. But if we place girls in large groups in the same place, they gradually create small subgroups out of them. Is this characteristic of their Nature?

This has to do with their Nature. A woman needs her own boundaries, that is, she wants to know that this is her place, her corner, or her home and walls — this is where she is. Boys, on the other hand, feel better in open terrain, in free open space, where there is more opportunity for games. That is why they don't much like to play in pairs, whereas a girl, on the contrary, likes better to play with her friend.

We are constantly making complaints to the girls that they don't want to unite with the whole group and simply talk with one another. But it turns out that by this we are harming them.

That means we need to train mentors.

Communicating with one another gives them pleasure, so why take it away from them? And why show displeasure at something that is actually good for them. Does this mean that boys physically should be raised more not indoors but out in Nature? And girls need this less?

And girls should be indoors more. And it turns out that we are returning to those natural frameworks in which humanity existed all its life.

It's interesting that we observed this too in our system of upbringing. We established that once a week we go out into Nature. And at a certain point some of the girls said that they preferred to stay in the classroom and finish their tasks instead of going to the park. But the boys were just waiting for the day when we would go on an outing, because for them it is the greatest pleasure.

And were the opposite phenomena not observed there? For example, girls wanting to go to the park, and boys wanting to stay in the classroom?

No, that didn't happen. We didn't actually force anyone to go on the outing, although it is very pleasant to go out into Nature, isn't it?

It is inherent in a woman by Nature not to leave the house for months, and perhaps even years. If she has a home, a family, and children, as well as a settled life, she almost feels no need to go outside.

I know many women who, upon hearing this, would explode.

But I am talking about what is inherent in a woman by Nature — this is not my idea. Does this speak of a woman's limitation? It is neither good nor bad.

Yes, but I know women who are very energetic by Nature and cannot stay at home.

This does not apply to all 100% of women, but a woman, in accordance with the general Nature, does not need more than a well-arranged home with children. This is precisely what gives her a feeling of complete satisfaction. Unless, in addition to this, she has something interesting, beautiful, that moves her forward. A man, on the contrary, needs to have a profession, success, society, some space, scope, a goal, and only after all of this a home, a wife, and children.

Let us now draw a preliminary conclusion about what we have been talking about. If I want to organize an educational environment for boys and for girls, then I should give the boys more chances to be out in Nature, give them more tasks and activities in the field. And girls need more activities in the home, letting them communicate with one another in small groups.

It is said: "Educate the youth according to his way." Why should we be smarter than Nature? We must not do by force what we want and what we consider will be good for them. We know that tomorrow everything may be completely opposite to what we consider today. We already know how much we do not understand what is happening with us and with the whole world. This is evident from the results to which we have brought human society. I am glad that in our days there are no longer such authorities that must be followed, no pressure or dictates. So let the children develop in accordance with their Nature. Let us learn from Nature how to attain equilibrium with it — and then all will be well.

So perhaps girls should be closer to the mother? Let them be next to mom and see how she behaves at home, how she cooks…

If only that were possible! Then we would need to change the whole environment again. If our society returned to a balanced state, and we produced only the things necessary for ordinary life, rather than thousands of objects that no one needs, then most women would prefer to stay at home or work part-time. Men, too, would be free for half a day, and then everything would be different. We would acquire a different perception of life, when there is something to do after work. But now you barely manage to watch the terrible news on television and go to sleep with all your troubles and pressure.

I understand that the significance of the workplace would decrease, and the family would become more important.

All the former values would become less important. The family would acquire greater significance in people's lives. They would have an occupation, a hobby, various pleasant simple things. They would fulfill themselves by realizing their tasks, would visit parks, would spend their time pleasantly. What's wrong with having a little free time every day? But today a person thinks that if it were so, he would go out of his mind. And on top of that he takes work home. If at work he sits in front of a computer, then at home he sits in front of the television or the computer.

Do you mean that we need more free time in life?

Undoubtedly, we need leisure for children and for the family. After all, we have arrived at such technological achievements that we can allow ourselves this. And what do we do? Everything is the opposite. And if we are speaking of a global, comprehensive approach to upbringing, according to the science of the higher laws of Nature, then we need to explain all these things, including a new concept of the family and a new attitude toward work and leisure.

It turns out that if we apply this method, then the need for punishment will fall away. In essence, for a woman it is neither bad nor good to be at home, but this should correspond to her Nature. And what is to be done if a woman feels that this does not correspond to her Nature?

It doesn't matter. There will be an occupation for everyone. We would develop leisure instead of excessive production.

Pleasure instead of competition. But still, if I offer a girl a choice — either to be at home with mom, or to come to a group of girls, to an educational environment — is this the right approach? Stay with mom, learn something from her, check whether you feel good at home, and if not, then you can be in an educational environment with girls, in small groups, and discuss what interests you. Which is preferable?

I believe that the system of upbringing will, in perspective, be partly virtual and partly realized in small discussion groups. It is desirable that this be close to home, in every neighborhood. There needs to be a male educator for boys and a female educator for girls. Everything concerning the development of natural inclinations and a profession, they would receive through the Internet, while what relates to study and inner development, to the sphere of upbringing, they would receive in the group.

So the children will receive their upbringing in the group, in the connection among themselves.

With the help of a male or female educator.

The educators will have to spark a discussion of a particular topic. The topic of sensory perception and of relationships needs to be touched upon more often. What, say, will the girls talk about more compared with the boys?

This is a whole sea of things. Of course, they will talk about different things. The educators need to go along with them, to float with the current in the direction that the children find interesting. But at the same time, it is necessary to change the direction of the conversation a little, giving it development, so that it does not go around in a closed circle but is purposeful. What are we clarifying right now, why, what do you think about it? A discussion with girls happens in exactly the same way as with boys, only the topic is a little different, or it is the same topic revealed in a different way with a different approach.

What should be the female educator's different approach during a conversation with girls? How does a discussion with girls differ from a discussion of the same topic with boys?

Say we were to seat a group of boys and a group of girls in separate rooms, and could observe them through a hidden window. At the same time, in both groups the same topic would be discussed. Well, how do you picture this to yourself?

I believe that the boys will come up with several ideas, and they will arrive at some conclusion.

The boys will have more direct answers and conclusions from what is said. They will not repeat themselves. And how will the girls behave?

I imagine that each of them will want to speak, to express her point of view, even if this opinion has already been voiced before.

They will need to be limited in time.

A wonderful idea! To allot each of them a certain amount of time for an answer and to strike a gong with a pleasant sound.

In a group of women, this must absolutely be done.

Girls usually have a lot of grievances if they were not given the opportunity to speak.

Of course, they also will not understand one another, because the approach, the cross-section, will be completely different.

As, for example, a cross-section along a straight line and along a circle.

The girls will exchange opinions among themselves, while the boys will try to arrive at a solution and to talk as little as possible.

In other words, if we want to arrive at some conclusion in a group of girls, it will be very hard for them to do this?

We do not set this as a goal at all.

So the goal is to let them express themselves?

Yes, and also to arrive at a sensation that they have a certain common feeling, a common understanding, a coming closer in a common sensation that they have arrived at by means of the discussion. And what they talked about doesn't matter. For boys the most important thing is to make a decision, regardless of whether they understood one another.

That is, they will arrive at some conclusion.

In other words, boys have no requirement to be in a certain emotional participation with one another. The goal of the discussion is not this, but the attainment of something concrete, established, that is not situated between them.