LGBTQ books in public school libraries

Della said:
Oh, yes, teachers think they're always right. When I think of some of the things they told me when I was in high school ... well Paul Simon said it best.

When my mother was in school there was no mention of sex at any age. At that time the incident of children born to unmarried women was 3%. I think it's about 40% now. Hows all that sex ed working for us?
Click to expand...
Ever heard of shot gun marriages? Being sent away to stay with family until the baby was born, then adopted?

Many children born to unmarried women today are actually in de facto relationships. Others are financially independent and choose to be single parents. Today women and girls have choices that were not available to earlier generations.

I think it is much better today than it was in my grandmother's time.
 
simple then you hasve to check the credential of each private school you choose and some of them are not necessarily very choosey plus there will be fees associated not unsubstantial - remember the Jewish school in Oz where the sisters three in all were abused it it has taken years to settle?? perhaps still not yet and all the trauma associated? this is a tough old world sometimes and sometimes it's best to see all sides first before venturing out - in rseponse to previous warrigal question
 

StarSong said:
There sure were plenty of shotgun weddings though. Several in my own family - including those in the WWII generation - and more than a few among HS friends (late 60s - early 70s). Every single one of those marriages resulted in divorce, as it happened.

Let's not forget all those girls who suddenly left town for extended (ahem) visits with an out of state aunt. Several months later a local relative, friend or church menber coincidentally welcomed a new baby shortly before girl showed up at school again. Alwyas turned out the girl was hiding from the public eye at home, or was sent to an unwed mother's home to wait out her pregnancy.

Young women have far more agency today over their own lives than 50+ years ago. That's likely a bigger factor for children born to unmarried women than sex ed.
Click to expand...
Snap.
 
davey said:
simple then you hasve to check the credential of each private school you choose and some of them are not necessarily very choosey plus there will be fees associated not unsubstantial - remember the Jewish school in Oz where the sisters three in all were abused it it has taken years to settle?? perhaps still not yet and all the trauma associated? this is a tough old world sometimes and sometimes it's best to see all sides first before venturing out - in rseponse to previous warrigal question
Click to expand...
Ah, yes. We once had a very brave Prime Minister who set up a Royal Commission into child sexual abuse in institutions, including but not confined to churches, church and private schools and organisations like the scouts. When the metaphorical rock was overturned, all kinds of nasty vermin were exposed. Public schools were not exempt for that particular problem.

Some very prominent people were revealed to be men who helped to cover up criminal conduct by teachers and clergy, including a former Governor General and a priest who rose to the rank of Cardinal in the Vatican. Things are much better now that the old days of cover up are behind us.
 
StarSong said:
Sigh... Can't believe you think their plights were close to the same.

Asians, Whites and Ashkenazi Jews came to the US willingly, many through chain migration, and were able to build clustered, supportive communities from the very start.

There's a big difference between being a voluntary low-paid laborer and an enslaved person who was ripped from one's homeland, unable to build wealth or own property, with generations repeatedly losing all family connections when sold at will by slaveholders, living with the threat of being raped, abused, beaten or killed for running away, simply irritating the master, or no reason at all, and so forth.

Median IQ of races? Now there's a thorny, subjective topic with all manner of variables including childhood nutrition, parents' levels of education, environmental conditions including pollution, neighborhood sociological influences, testing bias based on questions posed, and so much more.

I'm not qualified to discuss that subject and am pretty sure you aren't either.
Click to expand...
Granted that slavery was a terrible thing, but today 660,000 residents of Africa are what amounts to slaves …
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_contemporary_Africa

As for median IQ, the highest in the world population does not belong to Anglo Saxon Whites, but rather to Ashkenazi Jews. Jews comprise 0.2% of the world population but 22% of Nobel Prize winners. Next in median IQ, not those Anglo Saxon Whites, but the East Asians of China, Japan, Korea, etc. Who makes the finest computer chips in the world? The Chinese of Taiwan. And 50 miles south of here …
“Asian immigrants transforming Silicon Valley”
https://asamnews.com/2019/04/07/asian-immigrants-transforming-silicon-valley/

I could go on, but …
 
Packerjohn said:
The philosophy is indoctrination of young minds; then you got them thinking your way for the rest of their lives. The younger; the better.
Click to expand...
So, who is doing the indoctrination of young minds, Packerjohn? Are you referring to the people who believe in providing books appropriate to the day and age we are living in? Or the people who believe in planting into young minds the indoctrination of whatever religion they believe in?

Not clear what you are referring to by "the philosophy." But it's probably true for both of the above. If your philosophy is that children should be exposed to age-appropriate material on all subjects, or at least that books on all subjects should be available in a library, that is a healthy way to bring up children. It is not "indoctrination," it is exposure to ideas. The younger, the better. But the age-appropriate part of it is important.

If you mean the old Catholic canard about "give me the child until he is 7," etc., that is what I would call indoctrination.
 
Yesterday evening I was with my DD and SIL. DD teaches in a private, non-diocese, Roman Catholic Middle School (6th-8th grades, kids range 11-14 years), DS teaches in a public MS/HS (6th - 12th, 11-19 years). I asked if they have any transgenders students this term. Both do. The children wear clothing, and take PE, and use restrooms according to the gender they identify with, and are referred to by their preferred names and pronouns.

With DD's current student, the girl's parents are fully supportive. In DSIL's case some parents are supportive, others not so much. In the latter cases, California law states the children's preferences trump the parents' wishes when on campus. Meaning: when contacting the parents the teachers/staff use the identity the parents are comfortable. And if the parents choose, the child's name on official documentation including yearbooks and graduation ceremonies must be according to assigned birth gender. (Little surprise that these children tend to find their way to the nurse's office when scheduled for photos and skip graduation day.)

So if Frank chooses to be Mary, DSIL calls her Mary, but when emailing the parents DSIL refers to him as Frank. It's clear to DSIL that some parents are very uncomfortable with their child's preferences because the kids show up at school in one set of clothes, but by the time they hit their first classes they've changed to clothing they find more comfortable.

I asked how the other kids respond to transgender classmates. Both shrugged and said it's not a big deal to the other kids. Granted, this is not only California, but Los Angeles. They said the teachers' and administrators' goals are to not only educate children but to provide a safe, comfortable space for them.

I'm so proud of both of them for their compassion and acceptance of children who don't always have a lot of safe harbors.
 
”Some independent schools in B.C. receive funding at either 50% or 35% of their local public school district rate.“ This doesn’t please me.
 
mrstime said:
I don't think anyone wants to get into all that with 5 yer olds, however little Johnnie, a 5-year-old might possibly have 2 daddies or 2 mommies, so the class could simply be old that there are many different families, and Johnnie's is simply another family that loves each other and little Johnnie. That should suffice until the kids are a bit older. Any discussion about sex will probably come after the kids have already discussed it among themselves and got it all wrong.
Click to expand...
Not always quite that simple. I spent most of my working life in San Francisco, the Gay capital of the US. A manager I worked for spent his lunch hours in a Gay bar. We knew he was Gay, but he had a wife and two teenage sons. He eventually left his wife and moved in with a man. His sons were rumored to be furious and wanted no part of him.
 
ElCastor said:
Not always quite that simple. I spent most of my working life in San Francisco, the Gay capital of the US. A manager I worked for spent his lunch hours in a Gay bar. We knew he was Gay, but he had a wife and two teenage sons. He eventually left his wife and moved in with a man. His sons were rumored to be furious and wanted no part of him.
Click to expand...
Perhaps if society had been less judgmental about him feeling comfortable in his own skin decades earlier, he wouldn't have lived a double life.

Not excusing the behavior of living life with an innocent, unwitting "beard," merely explaining why it was a fairly common occurrence.
 
Warrigal said:
Ever heard of shot gun marriages? Being sent away to stay with family until the baby was born, then adopted?

Many children born to unmarried women today are actually in de facto relationships. Others are financially independent and choose to be single parents. Today women and girls have choices that were not available to earlier generations.

I think it is much better today than it was in my grandmother's time.
Click to expand...
Of course I've heard of what they used to do, but every baby born, whether at Aunt Edna's or at home, whether the baby was adopted out or kept, had to have a birth certificate and on it, it named whether the baby's mother was married or not or not. Those babies you mentioned would have been part of the three percent at that time.

Women in my grandmother's time had almost the same choices they do now. They could keep the baby just as they can now. Then they were shamed for it, today they are praised for it. neither one makes sense. Women in my grandmother's time didn't have birth control. Now they do. There ought to be fewer unwanted pregnancies, not more.

I just don't understand why such a huge number of women today have chosen to have unprotected sex with men who aren't committed to them, so that their child ends up without a father and at a far greater risk of growing up in poverty, going to prison.

Now you may list all the exceptions you know of, but the statistics show that this is the single biggest, fastest societal change in history and it's not making things better.

I disagree that it's much better today. Sure it's nicer for the single mother to have so much help from the government (subsidized housing aid to dependent children, sometimes free college) along with people telling them how brave and wonderful they are, but it's hell on the innocent children and no one seems to care about how they feel at all.
 
That 3 percent figure is wrong. That is ignoring the folks who were not white. Look at your statistics again by year. Also…there is absolutely no proof that one race is smarter than another. There is proof that IQ tests are not infallible. There have been many brilliant persons of every color and gender. Sometimes opportunity has more to do with success than intelligence.
 
StarSong said:
There sure were plenty of shotgun weddings though. Several in my own family - including those in the WWII generation - and more than a few among HS friends (late 60s - early 70s). Every single one of those marriages resulted in divorce, as it happened.

Let's not forget all those girls who suddenly left town for extended (ahem) visits with an out of state aunt. Several months later a local relative, friend or church menber coincidentally welcomed a new baby shortly before girl showed up at school again. Alwyas turned out the girl was hiding from the public eye at home, or was sent to an unwed mother's home to wait out her pregnancy.

Young women have far more agency today over their own lives than 50+ years ago. That's likely a bigger factor for children born to unmarried women than sex ed.
Click to expand...
I've said before that I went to a Southern Baptist High School. One of the most popular couples was one of the Head Cheerleaders and the Captain of the football team. She got pregnant and was forced to leave school. She couldn't graduate. There was tremendous shame associated with teen pregnancy in the 70s.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top