It's no secret that organizations such as the National Organization for Marriage and the Family Research Council scour through newspapers and online media sites looking for current events which they will use to demonize either the lgbt community or the concept of marriage equality.
Look for the following news item to possibly be the newest moral panic:
I can just imagine the headlines of various religious right blogs and emails talking about "the homosexual agenda" or how "this will be mandatory thanks to gay marriage."
Nonsense.
There are two things about this lesson plan which will probably be conveniently omitted from religious right propaganda (should they choose to exploit this incident):
1. The children who took part in this lesson were not required to. According to the article, all parents were informed of the lesson plan beforehand and were able to opt their children out of it if they chose to do so. So this was case of parents still having control over what is being taught to their children.
2. These lessons have nothing to do with marriage equality but the issues of gender identity and bullying. Whether the religious right wants to adhere to the fact or not, the issues of gender identity are becoming more widely known and some parents are finding that they have to deal with this issue. What's so wrong with talking with talking about this issue with children in a reasonable manner? Children aren't porcelain or glass. And they won't remain children forever. Teaching a child respect and understanding at an early age is hardly a bad idea.
But exploiting efforts by school to ensure a safe and knowledgeable environment in order to create fictional boogeymen is an abysmal idea.
Are you listening, National Organization for Marriage and Family Research Council?
Look for the following news item to possibly be the newest moral panic:
A gender diversity lesson at a California elementary school that featured single-sex geckos and transgender clownfish has angered conservative critics, who question its appropriateness for in-class instruction.
Students in all grades at Oakland's Redwood Heights Elementary School got an introductory lesson on the topic on Monday. Fox News was allowed to sit in on the lessons, which included teachings to kindergartners and fourth-graders.
The lessons were presented by an outside anti-bullying educational group called Gender Spectrum, paid for with a $1,500 grant from the California Teachers Union.
Joel Baum, director of education and training for Gender Spectrum, taught the classes. In the kindergarten class he asked the 5- and 6-year-olds to identify if a toy was a "girl toy" or a "boy toy" or both. He also asked which students liked the color pink, prompting many to raise their hands, to which he responded that that boys can like pink, too.
I can just imagine the headlines of various religious right blogs and emails talking about "the homosexual agenda" or how "this will be mandatory thanks to gay marriage."
Nonsense.
There are two things about this lesson plan which will probably be conveniently omitted from religious right propaganda (should they choose to exploit this incident):
1. The children who took part in this lesson were not required to. According to the article, all parents were informed of the lesson plan beforehand and were able to opt their children out of it if they chose to do so. So this was case of parents still having control over what is being taught to their children.
2. These lessons have nothing to do with marriage equality but the issues of gender identity and bullying. Whether the religious right wants to adhere to the fact or not, the issues of gender identity are becoming more widely known and some parents are finding that they have to deal with this issue. What's so wrong with talking with talking about this issue with children in a reasonable manner? Children aren't porcelain or glass. And they won't remain children forever. Teaching a child respect and understanding at an early age is hardly a bad idea.
But exploiting efforts by school to ensure a safe and knowledgeable environment in order to create fictional boogeymen is an abysmal idea.
Are you listening, National Organization for Marriage and Family Research Council?
1 comment:
So this was case of parents still having control over what is being taught to their children.
But those making these arguments don't want parents to have control over what is being taught to their children. They want that control for themselves.
We saw this principle in action during the brouhaha over the AP English class that put "Angels in the Outfield" (I think I have the title right) on the optional reading class. Certain moralists threw a fit and the school responded by declaring that a student who wished to read the book had to bring in signed parental permission.
The moralists recoiled and said that "wasn't good enough, because parents don't have the time or desire to check out the book" (to which I say, if parent don't care enough to make the time to check out the book, they have no business screaming about their parental rights) and the book should just be dropped altogether.
The desire wasn't for "parental control," but "moralist contral."
I insist that's the case about this story. This isn't a case where those complaining about this lesson don't want their kids to see it. They want to keep your kids from seeing it as well.
Post a Comment