Gay fairy tale sparks civil rights debate

[deadparrot]

LEXINGTON, Massachusetts (Reuters) - The crown prince rejects a bevy of beautiful princesses, rebuffing each suitor until falling in love with a prince. The two marry, sealing the union with a kiss, and live happily ever after.

That fairy tale about gay marriage has sparked a civil rights debate in Massachusetts, the only U.S. state where gays and lesbians can legally wed, after a teacher read the story to a classroom of seven year olds without warning parents first.

A parents' rights group said on Monday it may sue the public school in the affluent suburb of Lexington, about 12 miles west of Boston, where a teacher used the book "King & King" in a lesson about different types of weddings.

"It's just so heinous and objectionable that they would do this," said Brian Camenker, president of the Parents Rights Coalition, a conservative Massachusetts-based advocacy group.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060425/ts_nm/rights_gays_massachusetts_dc

[Glorfindel]

1. "Heinous and objectionable"?

Wow...a Christofascist Neandertal using big words! What next? (Apologies to Neandertals.)

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Xeric]

2. Bigot's Rights Coalition

What's "heinous and objectionable" is your bigotry, Brian.

[saltpoint]

3. "Heinous" doesn't seem quite the right word.

I might save "heinous" for a police summary on serial dismemberment. Something along that line.

But not for reading.

[Democrats_win]

4. More BS to distract us from warmongering, corruption, lying & leaks.

The last throes and all.

[CTLawGuy]

5. hey Parents Rights Coalition

I thought this might interest you if you don't like gay marriage

http://www.state.ms.us/

[proud2BlibKansan]

11. LOL!

[truthisfreedom]

6. reducing bigotry is one thing, inflaming parents is another. some things

should be better thought out.

[proud2BlibKansan]

12. It's a fairy tale for pete's sake!!

[xchrom]

16. i was a gay child before i was a gay adult.

so there can be no ''fairy'' tales directed toward creating a positive psyche for kids like i was?

[mondo joe]

22. Which topics shouldn't be covered for fear of inflaming parents?

Jews?

Interracial marriage?

The existence of gay people?

[JerseygirlCT]

93. Exactly, great post nt

[mondo joe]

36. Are the actual gay parents allowed to go to the school?

Or do they have to hide so as to not inflame other parents?

[ruggerson]

7. A little background on professional homophobe Brian Camenker

Brian Carmkenker is one of MA's most energetic anti-homosexual attention-seeking loons. His most recent moment in the spotlight was egging on that father who was arrested because he refused to leave the school after his son brought home the book Who's In the Family.

Here's a little from a July 2000 Boston Globe story about Brian:

Brian Camenker has been a longshoreman in Minnesota and a reporter in Florida. He has dabbled, he says, in vegetarianism, he has marched against nuclear power. He was once so enamored of Marxism that he studied Chinese so he could read an original edition of Chairman Mao's Little Red Book.

Camenker eventually took a sharp turn rightward, but the Newton computer consultant with the close-cropped hair and the rumpled khakis still fancies himself a revolutionary.

Just like David Horowitz, Mike Adams, and so many others who seem to blame the world for their own lack of interpersonal skills, and so turn from Marxism to wingnuttery to whatever new cause that allows them to feel self-righteous and persecuted.

More specifically, Camenker has been waging war against school programs that address homosexuality. Camenker, who has been at the center of several recent controversies related to that issue, says he is a protector of parents' rights, and that his views are rooted in his personal experiences and the Bible.

Camenker is radically out of step with his neighbors in famously liberal Newton. But the 47-year-old father of two has been an outsider for most of his life, and he clearly relishes his role in the spotlight - however harsh that light may be.

''Since I'm not afraid to say things, I have sort of by default become somewhat of a leader on this stuff,'' he said proudly. ''There are people who pray for me and people who hate me - and they've never even met me.''

That really is kind of pathetic -- to find one's identity by being hated by strangers.

But let's skip ahead to the part where Carmenker finds his special purpose (to quote Steve Martin's The Jerk):

But the experience that spurred Camenker's current crusade was yet to come. While working as a computer consultant at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in the early 1980s, Camenker says, he became friends with a group of gay men. He said that they ''hung around constantly,'' often going together to gay clubs on Cambridge Street.

But rather than make Camenker tolerant of homosexuality, the experience had the opposite effect. Camenker says he was appalled by his friends' promiscuity, and deeply affected by how they appeared to wrestle with their identities.

Camenker says he cannot remember any of his friends' names, so his assertions are impossible to verify.

So, how many of you think that Camenker just made up the gay friends, and how many think that his crusade against homosexuality is based on the shame and self-loathing he now feels because of his gay experiences in the '80s?


http://blogs.salon.com/0002874/2005/05/19.html

[Brazenly Liberal]

20. "he cannot remember any of his friends' names"

hahahahahaha!!!! Um, sure. 'Nuff said about his honesty level.

Guys like this weird me out. Homophobia in general weirds me out, but someone who makes a crusade of it? This guy has issues, oh yeah.

[Placebo]

8. Aww, what a sweet fairy tale.

I honestly don't see the big deal.

[mondo joe]

23. It was one of my younger daughter's favorite books.

And with good reason - it's clever and funny.

[Placebo]

63. I wanna read it now!

This has got to have sales of the book spiking.

[mondo joe]

83. Th thing I like BEST about King & King is how simple and

unapologetic it is. There's no "Sometimes boys like boys" explaining and no hitting readers over the head with the moral of the story - it's just short and sweet and straight forward.

[JackBeck]

88. Sounds good to me.

Kids only think there is something wrong when bigoted, uneducated adults make a big stink about nothing.

[mondo joe]

90. I'll always remember the look on my daughter's face when she

got to the page where the "mystery" is resolved. :-)

[MannyGoldstein]

9. My Take On This, FWIW

(I wrote this in my blog the other day)

I was listening to a call-in show while driving, the topic was schools teaching kids about gay marriage. There's been a bit of controversy about the school system teaching young'ns about homosexuality, and about gay marriage. I hadn't really thought much about it until yesterday.

The first few callers were against teaching this stuff to young kids - even to adolescents. "After all", one reasoned, "they're already confused enough at that age - no need to make things worse". It amazes me that people still think that homosexuality is a choice - they really think that exposing kids to the concept of gay marriage will transform them into homosexuals? It would be like trying to turn a cow into a carnivore by showing it pictures of a lion eating a gazelle.

Finally a retired school principal called to weigh in. The problem, he said, is bullying. Unless kids are exposed to gay marriage early on, and taught that it's OK, they'll bully kids who have gay parents. To me, that sounds like the correct way to look at it.

Being as we live in a Liberal enclave of a Liberal state, my own 6-year old, Thor, has been exposed to classmates with two mommies since preschool. I recently asked him if any of his classmates had two mommies, and he correctly identified the one who did. It clearly didn't matter to him - he answered in a manner that was no different than if I'd asked him if any classmates had a green car. I suppose that young children don't fing homosexual couples any more incomprehensible than heterosexual couples.

[proud2BlibKansan]

10. So a teacher now has to warn parents

before reading a fucking fairy tale?

[superconnected]

27. Fuck yeah.

I know lots of liberals who wouldn't want their kids reading gay literature in school.

Just because you agree with it doesn't mean all kids should be subjected to it.

The dumbass teacher shouldn't have went there.

Shes fueling the rightwing fire. Watch the hate rise against the gays now.

[proud2BlibKansan]

29. It's a FAIRY TALE!!

I take it they shouldn't read The Frog Prince either for fear kids would go looking for frogs to kiss? sheesh.

[superconnected]

47. If half the parents are going to go psycho over the frog prince

and start persecuting frogs, Then I think the teacher should ask first.

[proud2BlibKansan]

49. LOL And how do you think the teacher will know that?

[stepnw1f]

55. Good Point

Kissing a frog could be deemed by a sick mind as being "beastiality".

What the hell was Grover anyway?

[HuffleClaw]

13. "without warning parents first." ? ? ?

what OTHER things should parents be WARNED about i wonder?

'parents' rights group' my ass, they are a group of bigots who use religion as a basis for their bigotry and to try and FORCE their narrow views onto others. they have NOTHING to do with 'rights' of any kind.

[queenbdem87]

14. I know I personally, as a gay man,

consider my lifestyle to very heinous and objectionable....after all...gay rights did kill the dinosaurs.

[Hekate]

15. For those with open minds and hearts, "Fairy Tales" by Peter Cashorali

... is a great read. The subtitle is "Traditional stories retold for gay men," and it's been out since 1995.

As a mythologist, I'm always on the lookout for modern retellings of old stories, or new collections of overlooked stories. This book is the former, and very well done. Although aimed at an adult audience, I wouldn't hesitate to let anyone over the age of 12 read this good book.

Hekate

[superconnected]

28. Thanks Hecate.

I'll look for it on amazon.

[Kailassa]

17. A friend lectured me on the "appalling promiscuity" I showed

by being gay. She had been surprised when a mutual friend of hers and I fell in love. Until then she had only known us as heterosexuals, and didn't know how to reconcile this with her strict Catholic background. She invited me over one night and called me into her room, and was standing there stark naked, wanting to know if I'd like to do it with her too. I was mortified, and left abruptly, not knowing what else to do. Ever since then she was rabidly ant-gay, and disgusted with me for following such an immoral lifestyle.

So whenever I hear of someone like Brian Camenker, who had gay friends and then turned against gays, I wonder: "did his friends turn and run in horror when he flashed at them, too?"

[BurgherHoldtheLies]

18. Duh! Hey Rapturist Right: All fairy tales are gay...

;-)

These people really need to get a life.

[Jazz2006]

19. For crying out loud,

doesn't this "parents right group" have anything better to do?

Bake sale, perhaps?

Car pool club?

Taking a long jump off a short pier, perhaps?

Sheesh.

[JackBeck]

56. Nope. They've found an easier way to raise money.

Gay-baiting.

[Jazz2006]

89. In that case, they should exercise the third option that

I mentioned above.

Edit: Seriously, what is WRONG with this "parents rights group"? Are they really so insecure, so blind, so intolerant that they think this is what they should be expending their energy on? Do they really think that they are doing their children any good by burying their heads in the sand? Do they really believe that being gay is a choice? Do they really believe that none of their own children are gay?

This kind of wilful blindness and hateful bigotry disgusts me.

[JackBeck]

91. Everyone needs a job.

It's unfortunate that lifetimes are wasted promoting bigotry. But to each is own, I guess.

:pals:

[Jazz2006]

92. Ah, now if only these bigots

would also say, "to each his own", the world would be a much, much better place.

*sigh*

:toast:

Edit: (I still think they deserve a slap upside the head, though)

[mondo joe]

21. King & King is a really good book too.

There are plenty of BAD books about gays for kids. King & King is really good - fun, funny, clever.

[Tesha]

24. Some fairy tales are new, some are old...

> He said that they ''hung around constantly,'' often
> going together to gay clubs on Cambridge Street.

This sounds to me like the tale of an old fairy.

Tesha

[happyslug]

25. Remember we are Talking about PUBLIC SCHOOLS.

Public Schools, at least in theory, are the AGENTS of the PARENTS. Now Children are REQUIRED to go to Schools, but to be "Educated" not "Indoctrinated". What is the difference? Basically "Education" is being taught what the parents believe should be taught to the children. Now the teachers have the training and expertise as how teaching is to be done, but WHAT is to be taught has to be what the parents want taught.

Now there is an overlap between what is being taught and how it is to be taught, but the overlap is generally worked out on a case by case basis. Who works it out? The Local School Board, who being elected by the majority of the local people (and thus, in theory, representing the interest of the local people), get to decide not only what is to be taught but often how it is taught. If a teacher even thinks something MIGHT be controversial, she or he should contact the School Board to make sure they had no objections to the subject to be taught. Most things taught in School are NOT controversial, but teachers do know when something can controversial and when that occur they should get permission from the local Community (i.e the School Board) before doing the potentially controversial act. Democracy means rule by the majority, which, means we have to OBEY the will of the Majority even if we dislike that decision. That is DEMOCRACY. If we do NOT go with the Will of the Majority, that is rule by an elite, rule by a hierarchy, rule by experts, rule by tyrants, none of which is Democracy.

Now it the American rule on Democratic Institutions we have tried to avoid what is referred to as the Tyranny of the Majority, i.e. In the US we try to protect the interest of Minorities even if that means going against Majority rule. When do we do that? At that point where most American says we will respect the rights of Minorities. Again a Majority decision. Whenever the Bill of Rights is opposed by the vast Majority of Americans it has been ignored (Look at Northern opponents of the Civil war AND the Japanese internment of WWII).

On the other hand, the people of the US prefer consensus to division and as a whole protect minority rights better than most other countries (Divide and Rule is quite effective in fighting Democracy for most Americans to permit Divide and Rule to last for any length of time and the way to defeat Divide and Rule is NOT to be divided and thus Americans prefer consensus than tyranny of the Majority).

Thus how do we Americans try to both rule by the Majority and Consensus? By first trying to make the decisions that divide left to the individual (i.e. Religion, Speech, party membership, voting etc) and if that can not be done kept at a low level of politics as possible (For example what is taught in the Public Schools). By keeping local control the dispute is among people who live together and forces them to work to a consensus, instead of between people in two different communities fighting between themselves. Sometime this is NOT possible (National Defense, Civil Rights Violations etc), thus such problems are handled at the state and Federal Level, but as a whole what is taught in the local Schools is a decision made by the Local School Boards under State and Federal Statutes setting minimal requirements as to what is to be taught (but avoiding all controversial issues if at all possible). Thus sooner or later when it comes to Public Education, what is taught in the local Schools is what the Community as a whole want taught, nothing more and nothing less.

Thus Basically what does the COMMUNITY as a whole want. What if what the COMMUNITY want is NOT what the Teaching Community Wants? Then you have a fight, but it is a fight within the Community. Local School Boards, being elected, generally follow the will of their community. The Local School Board is OFTEN attacked by people who want things taught in the Schools that the Local Community does not. For example the book in question in this thread, was read to Seven year olds. I just do NOT think most parents will say they want their Seven year olds exposed to homosexuality. Thus I have to assume that is the general consensus of the Community NOT to expose seven year old to homosexuality (I might be wrong, but for this argument I will make that assumption). On the other hand 7th graders know of (or suspect) what is Homosexuality is and thus should be made aware or it, but that is the affect of age and the onset of puberty (Lets be honest most children, pre-puberty look to friends among their own sex, boys play with boys, girls play with girls, there is SOME mixing but before puberty even holding hands with someone of the opposite sex is "icky").

Now should a Teacher, on her own, take it upon herself, as an agent of the parents, as an employee of the Local School Board to teach topics the parents do not think should be taught at that age. If there is a dispute should not the local School Board make the decision of what is to be taught? If not the local School Board then who? Teachers? as a "elite" (in effect making Teachers the new high Priests of our Culture, for it is reserved to them NOT the people what is to be taught)? If we leave it up to teachers that is NOT democracy, that is oligarchy by Teachers. What is the Consensus of the local Community? That is determined by the School Board not the Teachers.

I can make the same argument if the book was a gay-bashing book, such a book to be taught in the School is Controversial and if it is to be used it has to be approved by the School Board. Again I do not think the local consensus would permit a gay-bashing book to be read to Seven year olds. If that is the CONSENSUS of the Community (as shown by the actions of the School Board) then it should be read (Just like if the School Board approved this gay marriage book, again the School Board represents local consensus and if the School Board approved the book the teacher than and only then has the right to read it to her students).

Now my guess if this book had been presented to the School Board the School Board would have said NO, not because the Board would be anti-homosexual, but because the book is controversial and NOT NEEDED IN THE OVERALL EDUCATION OF SEVEN YEAR OLDS. Thus to Read the Book to Seven year olds is controversial and thus attack the overall educational consensus of the Community (Basically the Community will have the philosophy that the Seven year olds will find out about sex, and homosexuality, soon enough and they do NOT have to be exposed to it from their teacher). School Boards, like most elected organizations, will avoid controversy for controversy destroys Community consensus. That is because most people want to avoid Controversy for it destroy COMMUNITY CONSENSUS.

We are a democracy, which means rule by the People even if a minority is harmed but that rule. Minorities are harmed all the time in Democracies, but that is acceptable unless it hurts community consensus (Which true democracy value highly). Thus Democracy value the Rights listed in the BIll of Rights, but also wants people to work together for a common consensus (and for that reason Democracy hates controversies like this book being read to Seven year olds).

[JerseygirlCT]

94. And this is not a democracy

we have many safeguards intentionally built into our system to protect minorities from the will of the majority -- particularly when that majority seeks to harm the minority.

We are NOT a country of "majority rules". That is NOT the way this country works.

[happyslug]

96. Since the time of John Locke, rule by the majority has been the rule.

John Locke said a people get the Government they want, even if it is a Dictatorship. That is true to this day, if the vast majority of people want a change of Government, the Government will change.

Now the US has republican institutions design to keep in check Majority rule, but those checks are only designed to control not stop majority rule. Now groups (Such as Corporations etc) with money (and thus cash to buy advertising and other means of communication) can direct the majority to do want that group wants, but as a whole the majority of people want consensus and prefer to do things that helps the maintain the consensus than rule over minorities.

My point is, the people rule over the long run, in the words of Lincoln, "You can fool some of the people all of the time, you can fool all of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time" - That is the key to Government since the time of John Locke, that the people will get the Government they want, good, bad or indifferent over the long run.

[mondo joe]

97. And which majority will have sway in cases like this?

The majority of parents at the school?

The majority of voters in the district?

Majority of voters in the state?

Majority of electoral votes in the nation?

[happyslug]

98. Generally the Majority of the People in the District.

But lets be fair, most people want CONSENSUS NOT CONFRONTATION. Thus most districts will avoid all controversy subjects IF POSSIBLE. And that what most people living in that district would like such controversy issues to be handled (i.e. ignored if possible).

My point I was trying to make, WHY DID THIS TEACHER TAKE IT ON HER OWN TO DO SOMETHING CONTROVERSIAL WITHOUT ASKING FOR GUIDANCE FORM HER EMPLOYER. Most employers would have told her NO, not because they are anti-gay, but to avoid Confrontation (The same thing if the teacher had told an Anti-gay story). You may NOT like that but that is the way it is. You may not like it, but you are NOT the elected representative of that district. The Elected Representatives are the people who have to go to the Voters and explain why this story was told. Having to Explain what your employees did is part of being an elected Representative as is deciding what the employee did. Thus it is NOT up to the teacher to decide what if any controversial subjects are to be taught, that is up to the ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES, and if they decide to ignore the Controversy that is generally how the majority of people what it to be handled. We can discuss the problem, we can argue with each other about the problem, but it is the elected School Board members who have to face the Voters on election day and thus they have to decide how to handle controversy issues.

[mondo joe]

99. Then I think you're asking the teacher to read the minds of

the district voters at most and the school board at least.

Those elected representatives can certainly issue guidelines - but to myknowledge they haven't. They live in a state where same sex marriage is legally recognized. HOw much more controversial can it be in that state to recognize the people who live there?

The School Board has to face the voters - but the teacher doesn't, and doesn't have to read their minds.

[happyslug]

101. If the teacher does NOT obey her employer she can be terminated.

With the possible exception of the State of Washington, no state to my knowledge has limited the "at Will" Concept of employment. Which means an employer can fire an employee for any reason or no reason (provided it is NOT an illegal Reason). It is illegal to discriminate against Homosexuals in Massachusetts (and and Oregon and many cites outside of those states) but if the School Board decides this is NOT a Sexual orientation situation, but instead is an employee NOT putting the best interest of her employer as her MAIN concern, she can be fired and denied Unemployment Insurance for that is "Willful Misconduct" as that term is generally used in Unemployment Insurance law (Willful misconduct is not only disobeying your employer BUT do acts that is NOT in the best interest of one's employer, including causing the employer problems with "Consumers" and other interest groups, including voters0.

Now the Supreme Court of the US has ruled that Teachers have a property interest in their employment (Based on the fact it is a right given by the state) which means the School Board just can not fire the Teacher, but if the School Board decides that what she did brought disrespect to the School, that is Willful Misconduct and she can be terminated.

Another factor in this case is the Teacher Civil Service? If yes, her termination has to go through the Civil Service system of her state, but even there Willful Misconduct is grounds to be terminated.

Many School Districts are unionized, and thus have a union Contract, but almost all Union Contracts permit Employer to fired employees who do NOT act in the best interest of their Employer (except in formation and continuance of the Union).

Thus my point is the Teacher has NO RIGHT to substitute her opinion in place of the opinion of her Employer. She has a duty to do what is in the best interest of her employer. If she and her employer has a dispute on that issue she can argue about it in the above forums, but sooner or later she is going to run across the problem that what she did was NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF HER EMPLOYER, AS THE EMPLOYER SAW THE SITUATION and HOW A REASONABLE EMPLOYEE WOULD HAVE SAW THE SITUATION.

Thus while the School Board has to face the voters, the Teacher has to face the School Board. The School Board is her employer and she has a duty to put what is best for the School Board over and above what she believe is best for someone else, be it the Children or herself. Now the School Board also has a duty to protect children, and an argument can be made that that is what she was doing when she read the book. The problem is whether that is what a "Normal" employee would have saw her duty to be as an agent, Servant and employee of the School Board.

[mondo joe]

103. Who ever questioned that teachers can be terminated?

What a queer response.

"Thus my point is the Teacher has NO RIGHT to substitute her opinion in place of the opinion of her Employer. "

Now you just need to show that that's what she did.

Did her employer provide guidelines or objectives? Or is she to read their collective minds?

[Name removed]

26. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lastliberalintexas]

30. Hmmm, I don't know about that

Many of us were rightly irritated with a teacher who recently discussed abortion with 4th grade students. I really don't see how this is much different. Though I do think that the conservative parents group is going a tad overboard, especially using words like heinous to describe the situation.

But then I'd also prefer it if teachers refused to push any fairy tale on children, what with the sexist tones to most of them. :shrug:

[superconnected]

31. Good one!

Yes, they are sexist aren't they.

[mondo joe]

32. There's a world of difference. I'll illustrate:

1. The problem with the abortion discussion was that it was graphic and presented to very young children.

King & King on the other hand is not in the least graphic and teaches nothing but that sometimes our assumptions are wrong.

2. There is nothing served by giving a graphic presentation on abortion to these kids. Simply reading a story that acknowledges that gay people exist is part of recognizing the world the kids actually live in - and may describe the families of some of the kids in the class.

[lastliberalintexas]

37. It does teach something else, though

It also raises the very complicated issues surrounding romantic love to very young students- students younger than those in the abortion thread the other day.

Again, I'm probably a little defensive just because I didn't like most fairy tales growing up. Even as a child I wondered why the hell some man always came along to save the day and rescue the woman in distress. :eyes:


And I also have grave reservations about teachers pushing things on students, regardless of whether it is something with which I agree as in this case. When my son is in school, I will likely be battling teachers and administrators all the time because I live in a very religious part of the world, and we are agnostics. I can't be too thrilled with this story, since what my son will likely be exposed to will be just the opposite.

[mondo joe]

39. It raises the issue of romantic love?

The issue of romantic love is standard fare for this age group.

If you could even find any kids who haven't yet heard of falling in love, they must certainly know there such things as husbands and wives.

If you think teachers shouldn't push "things" on students (as broad a category as any), what would be left for them to teach or read from? Can they teach about Martin Luther King? Rosa Parks? Can they teach about anything without pushing some "thing"?

[lastliberalintexas]

43. Sorry, by things I meant fairy tales

I should have been more precise. Couldn't you read my mind, though? After all, I talked about the religious fairy tales my son will be exposed to later in that paragraph? ;)

[proud2BlibKansan]

34. This is completely different

1. It wasn't a fairy tale

2. That teacher showed graphic abortion pictures to kids

3. Abortion is not a developmentally appropriate topic for 4th graders


Fairy tales are wonderful literature and get many kids hooked on reading. Perhaps you haven't read many good ones.

[lastliberalintexas]

42. I read them all growing up, just didn't care for too many

I prefered To Kill a Mockingbird, the Amelia Bedelia books, Secret Garden and poetry books. I even read my dad's Sports Illustrated if I was out of other things to read in the house.

But I've never liked the idea of teaching young girls that they should be like Cinderella, Snow White or Sleeping Beauty and wait on their "prince" to save them. Many fairy tales are sexist, monarchist and elitist in my very humble opinion.

Though I did like Hans Christian Anderson stories, where many of the heroes were actually females- The Snow Queen and Seven Swans for instance. :)

[proud2BlibKansan]

48. The moral in Cinderella is about treating ALL people

with respect and working hard for what you want. That is not the least bit sexist.

The one fairy tale I won't read to kids is Hansel and Gretel. I can't find a way to relate its message to young kids.

But I teach a fairy tale unit every year and there are so many wonderful stories with great messages it is not hard to avoid the sexist (and cannabilistic) themes.

[mondo joe]

50. Ha! I got in trouble for telling Hansel & Gretel to my niece a few

years ago.

How was I to know she was a scardey cat princess?

[proud2BlibKansan]

51. It is a very morbid story

[mondo joe]

52. It is - but I'd say her reaction was over the top, and she is badly

coddled by her parents. I certainly heard worse at her age without being traumatized.

That said, we're all individuals with our own thresholds. I'm trying to respect hers, but it's not easy.

[proud2BlibKansan]

54. It IS make believe

Some kids deal with fantasy better than others.

[JerseygirlCT]

95. Gay marriage is a reality now in MA

Whether those conservative parents like it or not, they'll have to make time at home to teach bigotry. It doesn't belong in the classroom.

And it's way past time for them to just get the heck over it.

[Sabriel]

33. I'm a mother of two children

They could be homosexual, or they could be heterosexual. How can I predict? So, I want them to see positive representations of ALL kinds of people and families, so they will form positive images, both of self and others.

I have no idea how my kids will turn out. And neither do the public schools. Therefore, to meet the needs of my children, curriculum should include all possibilities. Otherwise, they're not meeting my kids' needs.

[fshrink]

35. Actually,

lots of fairy tales do have an homosexual underlying content. Just because homosexual wishes and fantasies are universal.

[Runcible Spoon]

38. for all those calling for this teacher's head, consider...

in addition to all the other posters' excellent comments about how this should be treated in the same way that diversity, such as inclusion of a range of ethnicities enriches perspective, I'd like to add by introducing the flip side...I would really dislike having my kids indoctrinated to stereotypical and destructive Disney-fied gender roles in "sanitized" folk tales that are mass distributed in schools. However, I would recognize my role as the most formative figure in my child's life, and gradually help my child understand these issues as s/he ages. Parents should recognize this role and either use it as an opportunity to further inclusion of other peoples' lifeways or as a vehicle to instill intolerance. That is their choice, but the reality that we are all confronted with is that there is no "neutral" information. The way folktales were traditionally utilized was to instill certain values and facets of their culture, and now they are marketed as benign entertainment but I would argue that this is more complex since they are infact still teeming with social messages, but now they must be "unpacked" symbolically. When it comes down to it, it's always safer to teach a broad lesson of inclusion and let parents narrow that down according to their own ethical standards, because realistically classrooms are not hermitically sealed environments.

[warrens]

40. Jesus...

I remember when my daughter was that age. I asked her if she knew what gay meant, after she used it in a sentence. I got blase, "men who marry men and women who marry women," like EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT, DAD. These wingnuts just piss me off. It's a fact of life and pretending it isn't and that no one should know anything about it is typical Repuke thinking. Just like their attitude toward science. Screw them.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JackBeck]

45. Great story!

My 10 year old cousin got pissed at the family a few years back because he was the last one to find out that I was gay! I think we may forget sometimes how much these little boogers can grasp and be OK with things. I have a lot of hope for this next generation...

[mondo joe]

41. More BS: the parent claims this book violates MA law against

teaching sex ed without notifying parents.

But King & King doesn't teach a single thing about sex ed. There's no sex!

[JackBeck]

46. Oh, silly mondo!

Didn't you know that gay=sex? That the gay community doesn't work and pay taxes, and spends their days going from one orgie to the next?

Silly goose.

[PittPoliSci]

57. "It's just so heinous and objectionable that they would do this,"

Yes, teaching tolerance is so heinous. Fucking assbag.

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Moderator]

59. **Some posters would be well advised to re-read the DU posting rules**

Particularly the following section-


http://www.democraticunderground.com/forums/rules.html

4. Content: Do not post messages that are inflammatory, extreme, divisive, incoherent, or otherwise inappropriate. Do not engage in anti-social, disruptive, or trolling behavior. Do not post broad-brush, bigoted statements. The moderators and administrators work very hard to enforce some minimal standards regarding what content is appropriate.

Failure to do so could result in having posts removed and this discussion shut done again.

[Name removed]

60. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MissB]

62. .

.

[Name removed]

64. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JackBeck]

61. This is the law that's cited?

"Camenker said he believes the school, Joseph Estabrook Elementary, broke a 1996 Massachusetts law requiring schools to notify parents of sex-education lessons. 'There is no question in my mind that the law is being abused here,' he said."

I will ask, AGAIN, how is this fairy tale related to sex education?

[superconnected]

66. I believe the teacher should have gotten the parents permission

before reading the 7 yearolds the book.

Many parents won't agree with it. The retaliation from the parents should have been expected.

[JackBeck]

67. But no where does it state that the teachers are required to do so.

In a state where there is legalized gay marriage, why should they have gotten the parent's permission?

One parent complained. That's it. And this parent got an outside, anti-gay advocacy group involved. So we should let the reaction of one parent dictate a school's curriculum?

[superconnected]

69. That one parent will likely bring a lawsuit before the school with the

advocacy group. That's why.

[JackBeck]

71. On what merits?

No law was broken.

[superconnected]

74. Yeah, but they're still suing the school.

It looks like they're inventing laws... sex ed...?

[JackBeck]

68. And, as per my initial question,

what does this have to do with sex education?

[MissB]

70. Absolutely nothing.

[superconnected]

72. I have no idea what this has to do with real sex ed.

Since the parent named that though, it will be turned into that at the trial.

[mondo joe]

76. And if there are gay parents of students in the school would their

mere existence be "sex education"?

[JackBeck]

78. All this boils down to a RW advocacy group getting their 15 minutes.

This whole "controversy" is completely without merit.

[mondo joe]

80. Of course. Even those some DUers are falling for it.

It's a hoot that in MA of all places, where marriage is LEGAL, someone can make a fuss over the maarriage of two characters in a fairy tale.

[mondo joe]

75. Precisely how many parents need to be consulted before each

choice of book or activity in the classroom?

[superconnected]

77. I think my post was pretty definitive that all of the parents of the 7

yearolds who were going to get the book read to them should have been asked.

I don't believe that sounds like some should be excluded if they are gay, or included ect. I think my comment was pretty definitive in itself. It also says why I believe they should have been asked.

It also doesn't say all books read should get parents permissions. It's pretty clear that I'm speaking about reading the gay fairy tale to the 7 yearolds.

[JackBeck]

79. Why, though?

If you read the full article, you'd see that Lexington has many gay families. And that these kids have had lots of exposure to same-sex families. The only one who seems to have a problem is one parent and a RW, anti-gay advocacy group who probably still haven't gotten over the fact that they live in a state that believes in equality for everyone.

[superconnected]

82. I hope you're right and it's un-necessary.

I think they should check because one rw parent can take the whole place to court.

Hopefully you're right though. Maybe in the state of MA, this person and the advocacy group won't get far.

[MissB]

85. All because *one* rw parent?

:wow:

I don't think so. :rofl:

[mondo joe]

86. Again, how do teachers know which books will offend any one parent?

Short of having every parent ok every book, how can they proceed?

What if a book includes a dinosaur or says the earth is millions of years old?

What if someone is offended by a book about Ruby Bridges or Rosa Parks?

[mondo joe]

81. So how are the teachers to know which books should get the

approval of all the parents?

Is the teacher supposed to magically know which books will set any parents off?

And what if one parent objects to a book? Is it not allowed?

[superconnected]

84. Isn't it wonderful DU provides an ignore button. :)

[mondo joe]

87. I guess some questions are more easily ignored than answered.

:-)

[Megahurtz]

73. Lol! In Massachussetts Yet!

It figures they'de flip out in Massachussetts. :rofl:

[sakabatou]

100. I guess that means no Revolutionary Girl Utena...

[Blue_Tires]

102. Camenker=gobshite