Overwritten.net
Community => General Discussion => Topic started by: Pugnate on Tuesday, May 22, 2007, 01:17:21 AM
-
Girl, 12, sues over Brokeback Mountain
A 12-year-old girl and her family are suing for £250,000 damages after she was shown gay cowboy movie Brokeback Mountain in class.
The student, Jessica Turner, said she suffered psychological distress after watching the movie, reports the Chicago Tribune.
The teacher who showed the movie told students, "What happens in Ms. Buford's class stays in Ms. Buford's class," according to the lawsuit.
The girl and her family filed the suit against the Chicago Board of Education after the film was shown to students at Ashburn Community Elementary School a year ago.
Brokeback Mountain, which stars Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal as two cowboys who fall in love, includes love scenes between the two men and between the men and their wives.
"It is very important to me that my children not be exposed to this," said Turner's grandfather and guardian, Kenneth Richardson.
"The teacher knew she was not supposed to do this... It's like I told the principal, she should have better control over her teachers."
Richardson said his granddaughter was traumatised after watching the movie and told him: "They made me watch this bad movie."
Chicago Public Schools Spokesman Mike Vaughn declined to comment.
I agree. That's definitely not appropriate for a 12 year old. My sister wanted to see the movie, especially after nominations.. though we never got past the inital phase. I think the first 'love' scene left me quite disgusted... so I can only imagine what it did to a 12 year old.
-
Wow, that teacher is retarded. I don't care about the movie but what the Hell: "What happens in Ms. Buford's class stays in Ms. Buford's class." I mean if she said that the least she could have done was show them Sin City or something!
-
hmmm... i don't know what side to take on this so i'll sit on the fence.
on one hand, it could be a positive step in an adolescents development to realise the struggles that people can go through coming to terms with their sexuality. on the other hand, i think any film that deals with sexual themes (whatever they may be) is not really the most ideal watching for a 12 year old. i guess it depends on the 12 year old in question - if they're reasonably intelligent and well adjusted, i don't really see what harm it could do. if i'm one day unfortunate enough to have kids, i don't think i'd have a problem with them watching something like that - at least it teaches things such as compassion and acceptance, rather than violence and vengeance. the film may be graphic, and might be about something that we don't really want to see "in the flesh", as it were - but it happens, and seeing it on a tv or movie screen isn't going to damage anyone.
at the end of the day, it wasn't the teachers judgment call to make though. they stepped over the line, and while i hate the "sue everyone" culture, they've kind of got it coming.
-
Yea, I pretty much totally agree with beo. The teacher should have been more aware of what she was doing.
-
While the teacher may have been in the wrong, I don't think a lawsuit is justified here.
It's no wonder our education system is one of the worst on the planet. Teachers can't do anything to challenge young minds.
I saw a video in a diversity traning class at work. It was filmed in the late 70s, I believe, but showed footage from a teaching experiment in the 60's. A teacher took her class, I think it was third or fourth grade, and tought them about diversity in a pretty radical way. She first asked them what they think when they saw a black person walking down the street. They were from some small town in Iowa, all white, and they all said some fairly racist things.
So the teacher asked if it is okay to judge someone based on what they look like. Pretty much they all seemed to say yes or not really answer. She started going on saying things like, "Well you, know, people that have brown eyes aren't as smart or as good at things as people with blue eyes. It's the truth, scientific fact." Then she made people with brown eyes wear a black collar and on recess a black sleeve over their jackets - so that she could see what color eyes they have from a distance.
Throughout the day, she kept reinforcing that brown-eyed people weren't as good as blue-eyed people. The kids immediately took to it and friendships between people with brown eyes and people with blue eyes instantly shattered and the blue-eyes kind of took over the dominant position in the class, and threw out put-downs of "you're a brown-eye." This all started to occur within minutes of her proposing the idea that brown-eyed people weren't as capable.
They next day, she told the class that she made a mistake, that it was actually blue-eyed people that were dumb. And the role basically reversed for that day. At the beginning of the next day she said it wasn't true at all that eye color had anything to do with the mental capacity or behavior of a person, and that she had them go through that so they could learn what it was like to be judged based on something irrelavant and something that couldn't be changed about yourself, like the color of your skin. It was pretty amazing.
About 20 years later, a newscaster gathered the teacher and that class from the 60's and asked them how that impacted their lives. They all pretty much said it was like an epiphany and it completely changed their lives and their children's lives forever.
Anyway, my point is that this teacher - any teacher - wouldn't be able to do something like this today. They'd be at the very least burned at the stake by the parents and fired. More likely she would be sued for "psychologicall damaging" the students. Even though the aggressive tactic had a deep and positive impact on the students, it basically isn't allowed today.
It's pretty sad really. I mean our education system gets worse every day and people wonder why. It's because no one trusts teachers anymore, and no one gives them the sort of free reign they need to really challenge and develop American minds.
-
hmmm... i don't know what side to take on this so i'll sit on the fence.
on one hand, it could be a positive step in an adolescents development to realise the struggles that people can go through coming to terms with their sexuality. on the other hand, i think any film that deals with sexual themes (whatever they may be) is not really the most ideal watching for a 12 year old. i guess it depends on the 12 year old in question - if they're reasonably intelligent and well adjusted, i don't really see what harm it could do. if i'm one day unfortunate enough to have kids, i don't think i'd have a problem with them watching something like that - at least it teaches things such as compassion and acceptance, rather than violence and vengeance. the film may be graphic, and might be about something that we don't really want to see "in the flesh", as it were - but it happens, and seeing it on a tv or movie screen isn't going to damage anyone.
at the end of the day, it wasn't the teachers judgment call to make though. they stepped over the line, and while i hate the "sue everyone" culture, they've kind of got it coming.
Have you seen the movie?
I realize what you were saying, and that's why we rented it because I thought it would represent the struggles of homosexuals or whatever. That could have been interesting.
Unfortunately within the first thirty minutes you see one gay cowboy pound the other gay cowboy in the ass after watching them spontaneously make out in bed. What the hell does that have anything to do with anything? I thought it was rubbish, and looked like just an attempt to get away with as much as possible.
My disgust with the film has nothing to do with my views on homosexuality.
Had the film showed a heterosexual couple engaged in anal sex, I still would have found it outrageous material for a twelve year old.
n one hand, it could be a positive step in an adolescents development to realise the struggles that people can go through coming to terms with their sexuality. on the other hand,
Look if it just showed the struggles that minorities in society go through, I would have been all for it.
The movie had sex scenes (involving Anne Hathaway topless -- yum) for example. That is just not appropriate material for twelve year olds. What about one cowboy thrusting himself into another cowboy. Is that the sort of thing that is appropriate?
It's no wonder our education system is one of the worst on the planet. Teachers can't do anything to challenge young minds.
It is obvious to me that you haven't seen the movie. It is one thing to challenge the mind, and another to tear it into pieces.
They aren't suing the teacher because this is a issue of homosexuality. The issue is that the movie is not appropriate. Even if it involved a hetrosexual couple, I wouldn't want a twelve year old watching anal sex.
-
Regardless of the content of the movie, is a lawsuit really justified here? I mean seriously. What's next? "You gave my son an F on his paper and he's now psychologically distraut because of it so I'm suing you?"
-
Grading a student on performance is what teachers are hired for. That is a judgment call, and teachers can't and shouldn't be sued for that. This is something else entirely. I don't think that movie was at all appropriate for twelve year olds, and I am sure most parents were quite outraged.
-
Grading a student on performance is what teachers are hired for. That is a judgment call, and teachers can't and shouldn't be sued for that. This is something else entirely. I don't think that movie was at all appropriate for twelve year olds, and I am sure most parents were quite outraged.
That's what I think too. It's very inappropriate for 12 year olds. Hell I think it's inappropriate for 14 year olds. I'd be more understanding if the teacher had shown them a Sex-Ed tape! I mean that would be actually useful!
-
well, it's not like there's any penetration shots. i'm one of those weird people who doesn't actually see anything wrong with sex. i don't think it's portrayal in films is anything to be disgusted by, and i don't really see how that differs from when you're twelve, or when you're over eighteen. sexuality isn't evil, it's a part of life that everybody experiences. it's a hell of a lot more interesting than most other parts of our life, so i don't see anything "wrong" with it being explored in film.
i think far more damage is caused by the view that is impressed upon us constantly that sexual stuff is somehow dirty, and should be shied away from whenever possible. that way of thinking leads to repression, and really fucks people up in the head.
-
I disagree entirely. Just because you keep somebody away from something doesn't mean you make them believe its dirty or disgusting. I was raised with a very healthy awareness of sex. I knew what it was, I knew what the positives and negatives were from a biological standpoint (why people liked it and what it could do to you if you were irresponsible about it), and I was also kept away from it because my parents were very traditional. Am I fucked up? No. I had my little flings with girls in high school and college, played around here and there, and generally got to know the landscape of that side of life well enough, but I also remained (only in the most technical sense of course) a virgin until I got married. Had I treated it like recreation, I guarantee you there'd be no way that I'd have the willpower to deal with the sexual problems I have in my marriage now due to my wife's condition, just as I can pretty much guarantee few to none of you guys would be able to deal with that sort of thing in a relationship.
Do I think the film would be appropriate for a young girl? Not a chance in hell. And even if somebody felt that maybe it was, what fucking place is it for a teacher to show that? No, I'm sorry, but a teacher's place is to teach a curriculum, not indoctrinate kids with whatever their own personal views on something happen to be. While its true that something positive like what scott said could never happen in school these days, I don't think it's supposed to. If people were reasonable and could raise their kids there'd be no need in the first place. But people don't, so they constantly look outward for others to teach their kids everything that *they* should be teaching them. Do I think she deserves to be sued? Yes, in this case I do. Not that I agree with our legal system or the way it operates most of the time, nor with the concept of just handing money to people for everything, but I do think the teacher deserves punishment for being an egomaniac who believes her own concepts are so far above those of the parents that have entrusted their children to her.
It used to be that teachers could do more because they shared the same values as the parents most of the time. The country was much more even-keeled, much more unified in terms of what the general populace thought was good and should be taught to kids. Now we don't have that at all. We have extreme division over fundamental principles based on absolute, foundation-level disagreement on what is right and wrong. Now, the teachers only place is to teach kids math, how to spell, and then to shut the fuck up. It's a side effect of everything else happening in the world, and while it's a shame, it's a hard fact of the division we live with.
I'm more or less with Pug on the subject. Say what you like about homosexuality, but the base issue is really that a movie like this just doesn't belong in a classroom, gay cowboys or otherwise. Were I a parent, I'd be demanding her head. Does it mean the kid is going to be fucked up for life just because she saw this stuff? No, not necessarily, but it was never the teacher's place to show it.
-
I disagree entirely. Just because you keep somebody away from something doesn't mean you make them believe its dirty or disgusting. I was raised with a very healthy awareness of sex. I knew what it was, I knew what the positives and negatives were from a biological standpoint (why people liked it and what it could do to you if you were irresponsible about it), and I was also kept away from it because my parents were very traditional. Am I fucked up? No.
i didn't mean to imply that everyone who comes from such an upbringing is fucked up, more just that i don't see why sex is considered taboo, or why we have to be shielded from it so much. i don't think that being exposed to the fact it exists, what it is, or even visual depictions of consensual sex is going to have a negative impact on anyone. of course, others may disagree, and i think that's fine. it's your prerogative as a parent to decide these things.
but yeah, i totally agree that she shouldn't of shown it. not because i believe it was the wrong thing to do, but because so many parents are blatantly going to disagree with her choice. it's their say, not hers that matters.
scott, i think the easiest way to relate is imagine if your kids were being shown something that you would consider disturbing - a clockwork orange, saw, or hostel. some parents are obviously going to have different views on what is or isn't acceptable. it's a fine line, and the teacher must of *known* that she'd be crossing it with some of the parents.
if my kid was shown a clockwork orange at school, i'd be really fucking pissed. to a lot of people (be they right or wrong), this isn't a million miles away from that.
-
That was a great post Que. Very well put.
but I do think the teacher deserves punishment for being an egomaniac who believes her own concepts are so far above those of the parents that have entrusted their children to her.
That's pretty much it.
i'm one of those weird people who doesn't actually see anything wrong with sex. i don't think it's portrayal in films is anything to be disgusted by, and i don't really see how that differs from when you're twelve, or when you're over eighteen. sexuality isn't evil, it's a part of life that everybody experiences.
I don't think you are the one who is weird. You are part of the majority on this.
Anyway I am not saying 'sex is teh evil' and stuff. I am just saying that it is a sensitive subject and each parent has their own belief on what a child should view and what not. A teacher is in an entrusted position, and doesn't have the right to make such decisions.
The thing is, we are talking about twelve year olds.... twelve year olds.
I remember when I first learned how babies are born and what sexual intercourse is. I was probably about ten and had come across a biology text book from a senior class. I remember I was pretty shocked back then. I can still remember thinking,"Ewww that's disgusting. Why don't they use injections?" lol.
Back to the subject of this thread. I can imagine that for a lot of twelve year olds, this was their first sexual experience of any nature. I guess in today's society you can't escape sexual content, but imagine your first memory of any sexual activity involving Jake Gyllenhaal being roughly shoved to the floor on all fours by Heath Ledger, as he removed his pants and attempted to go for 'teh butt sex.'
While they didn't actually show any private parts or actual penetration, it was pretty obvious from the grunting and the thrusting what the hell it was going on. Do any of you honestly think it is alright for twelve year olds -- some of them innocent -- to have seen that? If I had seen that as a twelve year old, I am sure I would have been more than a little shocked.
-
While didn't actually show any private parts or actual penetration, it was pretty obvious from the grunting and the thrusting what the hell it was going on. Do any of you honestly think it is alright for twelve year olds -- some of them innocent -- to have seen that? If I had seen that as a twelve year old, I am sure I would have been more than a little shocked.
i think if you deal with it as "that's fucked up", that's how the kids are probably going to see it. if you treat it as another part of normal human sexuality, then the kids will see it that way too. i'm not a psychologist though, so i'm not really in a position to comment! and i don't really think twelve is too young to see this sort of thing. i learned about sex when i was about seven or eight, and by the time we had sex ed at eleven, i don't think any of it was new to anyone in the room. sure, i'm pretty positive that i'd be grossed out, but i don't think i'd have any legitimate reason to be. you grow up and you learn, not all what you learn is pretty. i don't see any reason for people to be shielded from stuff like this based on age - however, if we were talking about highly violent subject matter, then i'd have a completely different view.
-
scott, i think the easiest way to relate is imagine if your kids were being shown something that you would consider disturbing - a clockwork orange, saw, or hostel. some parents are obviously going to have different views on what is or isn't acceptable. it's a fine line, and the teacher must of *known* that she'd be crossing it with some of the parents.
if my kid was shown a clockwork orange at school, i'd be really fucking pissed. to a lot of people (be they right or wrong), this isn't a million miles away from that.
I would not like it and yeah probably be upset. But file a law suit? Uh, no. I am seriously shocked that a lawsuit was filed in this case.
I'm surprised I disagree with almost everyone that's posted here. I don't think it is teachers' responsibility to teach everything there is to be taught, but you all do realize the fact that we don't let teachers teach anything other than math, science, etc. is the direct cause of the growing dumb-ness of Americans in comparison to the rest of the world, right?
-
I have a question: do you all think that it was innapropiate because of its "R" rating or because of the gay sex?
We used to watch "R" movies at school all the time, we watched "Lord of the Flies" (which is filled with cussing and language) and "The Thomas Crown Affair (which is filled with sex), no one ever complained.
-
The serious problem here is that a teacher took it upon herself to promote a social viewpoint which was neither entrusted to her, nor approved by the guardians of the children entrusted to her. There is no need even to discuss what the controversial subject matter was, or its merits. Suffice it to say that it falls outside of what many parents would approve for their children's education, and that surreptitious methods are the only way to promote it. This teacher knew that, and whether her motives were perverse, or the the very soul of some liberal utopia, makes no difference. She needs to stop teaching children anything. In my view, she can no longer be trusted unsupervised--and what school is going to pay her salary plus fulltime supervision?
-
Totally agree with Cobra.. i mean, "What happens in Ms. Buford's class stays in Ms. Buford's class"?!?! This woman knew what she was doing was wrong but did it anyways.
-
I still don't see what the big deal is, these kids see all of this shit in the real world. If this teacher showed "The Ten Commandments", this wouldn't be an issue.
Also, how does showing "Brokeback Mountain" equate to a 250k lawsuit?
-
uhhh... people want easy money?
-
I still don't see what the big deal is, these kids see all of this shit in the real world. If this teacher showed "The Ten Commandments", this wouldn't be an issue.
That is the most idiotic thing I think I've ever heard you say. Guess what, mate, people have been bitching and suing over religious stuff in schools all over the fucking place since the 80s.
-
That is the most idiotic thing I think I've ever heard you say. Guess what, mate, people have been bitching and suing over religious stuff in schools all over the fucking place since the 80s.
Lets be honest, if I tried to sue my child's school for showing "The Ten Commandments" I would be laughed out of court and you know it. Shit, public schools won't even take the "under God" out of the pledge.
My point is, the only reason there is a lawsuit to begin with is because this movie is seen as "sacrilegious".
-
Yea while I don't agree with a lawsuit for 250k, I do feel that punishment for the teacher is required.
-
Lets be honest, if I tried to sue my child's school for showing "The Ten Commandments" I would be laughed out of court and you know it.
It must be nice living in your own reality.
-
It must be nice living in your own reality.
You tell me.
-
hot topic we have here. I'd like to put my finger in the pie too.
I agree with Que and Pug.
That movie sucked. It was just wrong on so many levels. With or without those scenes, it's still disgusting. The selfishness of the characters are really quite amazing.
Nickclone, you've got to be kidding me! You live in a country that's half full (a bit of an exaggeration) of people who can't even stand seeing a person walking down the street holding a bible or doing the rosary. A country that's trying to remove "In God we trust". Bigger picture, dude.. bigger picture.
I think one of the worst things that can happen to a kid is to be forcibly pulled out of that kid's world too early. Especially by teachers who, along with the parents, are supposedly people who can show kids how to act and live.
Kids are exposed to so many things too early nowadays. I remember when I was younger, I wasn't as exposed. Of course I heard a lot of stuff, saw a lot of stuff, and I feel like I was robbed of some time. When the reality of the world and just how disgusting it can be and how horrible people could be hit me, I was mature enough to take it. I can't say I took it well. It broke my heart and still breaks my heart...but at least I was old enough to discern that not everything is like that. If a kid's exposed too early on, they'll miss out on years they'll never, ever, ever be able to have. They'll get callous and just be so disillusioned. I know enough teens who committed suicide because they were just so over the world.
-
hot topic we have here. I'd like to put my finger in the pie too.
I agree with Que and Pug.
That movie sucked. It was just wrong on so many levels. With or without those scenes, it's still disgusting. The selfishness of the characters are really quite amazing.
Nickclone, you've got to be kidding me! You live in a country that's half full (a bit of an exaggeration) of people who can't even stand seeing a person walking down the street holding a bible or doing the rosary. A country that's trying to remove "In God we trust". Bigger picture, dude.. bigger picture.
I think one of the worst things that can happen to a kid is to be forcibly pulled out of that kid's world too early. Especially by teachers who, along with the parents, are supposedly people who can show kids how to act and live.
Kids are exposed to so many things too early nowadays. I remember when I was younger, I wasn't as exposed. Of course I heard a lot of stuff, saw a lot of stuff, and I feel like I was robbed of some time. When the reality of the world and just how disgusting it can be and how horrible people could be hit me, I was mature enough to take it. I can't say I took it well. It broke my heart and still breaks my heart...but at least I was old enough to discern that not everything is like that. If a kid's exposed too early on, they'll miss out on years they'll never, ever, ever be able to have. They'll get callous and just be so disillusioned. I know enough teens who committed suicide because they were just so over the world.
No! Not you too, Raisa!
Its just a movie, its not saying "go fuck a cowboy", "suck cock", "be a carpet muncher" or " go stick your dick in asshole". Its just a movie about two guys who love each other, I really don't see what the big deal is. Should it have been shown in school to a bunch of kids without their parents permission? No, but only because it is rated "R". Hell, the movie doesn't even condone anything gay. Its just a story.
I don't see whats so disgusting about it, I would never do it, but there are a lot of things I won't do. Besides, why is it ok to have a love story that centers around adultery or murder, but not butt hole pleasures?
Oh and I do think that children are being exposed to more stuff earlier than I ever was, but its not a bad thing and it can't be helped. Between tv, radio, newspapers and now the internet, the world can't be hidden from your children like it could back in the old days. Some of you may think that protecting your children from "the world" is good, but in doing so you're not preparing them for reality.
Edit: Also, do you really think I go around belittling people who where crosses and rosaries? Even if they are idealizing a religious object...anyways, I don't do it. Its the other way around, I've never had an atheist try to convert me to there side when I was minding my own business at a grocery store. I've never had an atheist knock on my door and try to "enlighten" me. When I used to wait tables on Sunday morning (good money, but the customers were pricks), people would ask me if I went to church. When I lied and said yes, I got a bigger tip, when I said no I got lectured and told that I would "come around".
I've never harassed someone who walked around with a bible, its actually the other way around.
-
I just want to bring to attention the sudden proliferation of "tough"s in the GD forum. What's the dealio?
-
I blame Pugnate. That rat bastard.
-
Its OK, you can call me whatever you want AngryK. You are teh wise.
-
SHUT YOUR STUPID FACE!
-
:(
I will do as you suggest.
-
i hate you. srsly.
-
I hope one day you will change your opinion.
-
What I learned from this thread:
If you don't like Brokeback Mountain you are a homophobe.
If you are uncomfortable watching 2 guys kiss or hump, you are a homophobe.
If you are a homophobe, you are probably a religious zealot.
Religion is nothing more than a form of control, and a way to cheat on your taxes.
Christians R bad, but I swear no one persecutes them for anything, ever.
-
(http://warnerkirby.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/the_more_you_know775718.jpg)
-
What I learned from this thread:
If you don't like Brokeback Mountain you are a homophobe.
If you are uncomfortable watching 2 guys kiss or hump, you are a homophobe.
If you are a homophobe, you are probably a religious zealot.
Religion is nothing more than a form of control, and a way to cheat on your taxes.
Christians R bad, but I swear no one persecutes them for anything, ever.
Wow, so you I just go around all day calling people racists and homophobes, huh? The things you "learned" in this thread were never said by anyone, I'm not sure you're going to pass the test young man.
1. If "The Ten Commandments" or "The Passion" were shown in the classroom, there would be no public outrage. I honestly believe that if the roles were reversed, no one here would blink in eye that someone forced kids to watch one of those movies. Showing "Brokeback", doesn't have any religious or political connotations, its just a movie about a couple of gay dudes.
2. You got your third learned thing backwards.
-
Wow, so you I just go around all day calling people racists and homophobes, huh? The things you "learned" in this thread were never said by anyone, I'm not sure you're going to pass the test young man.
1. If "The Ten Commandments" or "The Passion" were shown in the classroom, there would be no public outrage. I honestly believe that if the roles were reversed, no one here would blink in eye that someone forced kids to watch one of those movies. Showing "Brokeback", doesn't have any religious or political connotations, its just a movie about a couple of gay dudes.
Wow... I cannot believe you said that. That is the most ignorant thing I have heard in a long time.
There would be HUUUUUUGE public outrage if either of those movies were screened in a classroom. Not just from lawsuits either (of which there would be plenty) but from groups like the ACLU and others.
Or have we forgotten about seperation of church and state?
-
What kind of teacher would think it's a good idea to show a class of 12 year old kids Brokeback Mountain anyways? I remember when I was that age and we saw a movie where two people kiss the whole class would get rowdy. This teacher is around 12 year olds all the time, she should know that a lot of them can't handle this kind of subject matter. She should also know that parents will find out and that they're going to be pissed.
I'm all for radical teaching methods and broadening the horizons of kids, but this teacher seems to be oblivious and short-sighted. I wouldn't want her in and position of authority over my kids.
-
My question is what exactly was she trying to teach by showing the movie? Was showing the movie the best way to teach this or was there a better, less controversial way to teach it? I'm betting the latter.
Most likely she got it on netflix and just wanted to watch it.
-
I have a question: do you all think that it was innapropiate because of its "R" rating or because of the gay sex?
This insinuates that the gay sex is the problem, which in turn insinuates that anyone who thinks the movie shouldn't have been shown, has a problem with gay people.
I still don't see what the big deal is, these kids see all of this shit in the real world. If this teacher showed "The Ten Commandments", this wouldn't be an issue.
This is where you bring in religion, trying to insinuate that the religious tyrants of the country who won't let you see your gay sex, are forcing the Ten Commandments down your throat.
Those 2 quotes add up to you calling us homophobic, religious zealots.
-
My question is what exactly was she trying to teach by showing the movie? Was showing the movie the best way to teach this or was there a better, less controversial way to teach it? I'm betting the latter.
Most likely she got it on netflix and just wanted to watch it.
haha, yeah you may well be right!
-
Nicklone, this has nothing to do with homosexuality!
-
The only thing homosexual about this thread is Pugnate!
-
Alright, look...this is not a case of public outrage, it's an isolated complaint and a lawsuit. There is a huge difference between the two. There's also a good chance the lawsuit will be thrown out...most of the 'ridiculous' lawsuit stories you hear about the american legal system are myths based on suits that never made it to actual court (others. like the Mcdonalds 'hot coffee' suit have the details wrong to make it seem more ridiculous than it was).
You also have to be crazy if you think there wouldn't be a problem with Ten Commandments or Passion of the Christ being shown in a public school. I'd be willing to wager that if we took a random sample of classes from all the states, showed them those movies in a blind trial, and waited for the complaints to come in that the showing of either of those two movies would raise more complaints across the board.
As for this incident in and of itself, the teacher should be punished and possibly fired. Not for the movie itself or the content held within but rather because of the extremely poor judgement she exhibited and the absolute lack of respect for the role and responsibilty she has as a public servent. The movie has zero educational value, and while other movies are shown which also have zero educational value, they are also much less controversial. If a movie is shown with provocative content in public school you'd be wise to make sure you had a rock solid reason for showing it. Teaching children about sexuality is a very weak excuse in this case because it really doesn't do that and these kids have been bombarded with videos and guest speakers about this very subject since they hit grade 3 or 4 anyways.
The lawsuit is a bit extreme, but that's for the judicial system to sort out.
-
Alright, look...this is not a case of public outrage, it's an isolated complaint and a lawsuit. There is a huge difference between the two. There's also a good chance the lawsuit will be thrown out...most of the 'ridiculous' lawsuit stories you hear about the american legal system are myths based on suits that never made it to actual court (others. like the Mcdonalds 'hot coffee' suit have the details wrong to make it seem more ridiculous than it was).
You also have to be crazy if you think there wouldn't be a problem with Ten Commandments or Passion of the Christ being shown in a public school. I'd be willing to wager that if we took a random sample of classes from all the states, showed them those movies in a blind trial, and waited for the complaints to come in that the showing of either of those two movies would raise more complaints across the board.
As for this incident in and of itself, the teacher should be punished and possibly fired. Not for the movie itself or the content held within but rather because of the extremely poor judgement she exhibited and the absolute lack of respect for the role and responsibilty she has as a public servent. The movie has zero educational value, and while other movies are shown which also have zero educational value, they are also much less controversial. If a movie is shown with provocative content in public school you'd be wise to make sure you had a rock solid reason for showing it. Teaching children about sexuality is a very weak excuse in this case because it really doesn't do that and these kids have been bombarded with videos and guest speakers about this very subject since they hit grade 3 or 4 anyways.
The lawsuit is a bit extreme, but that's for the judicial system to sort out.
But this isn't an isolated incident, its on the net, we're talking about it and I'm positive others are talking about it as well. It may not be on CNN, FOX News or MSNBC (as I know of), but it's definitely out there. I also don't have the same faith in our legal system as you do, but I guess its hit or miss.
I also disagree with that "Passion" would get more flack than "Brokeback", Christians make up about 70% of the US population. People who would get offended by the showing of a movie like "The Passion" are the minority. Hell, even I wouldn't sue if it were shown to my kids at school. I'd probably be upset, but I wouldn't sue or call for the teacher's job.
I'm not saying the teacher was right, but I also think the lawsuit is extreme.
-
As far as we know, yes, it's totally an isolated incident. I haven't heard of there being a recent surge in lawsuits brought against schools for showing Broke Back Mountain, and although I haven't looked, the reason I haven't come across this is because it doesn't exist. One complaint - one lawsuit - hardly a litmus test of the views of the entire population. I also stand by my statement that it's not a public outrage, that's just pure sensationalism. Show me some evidence of this and I'll believe it. Just because it's reported on and it's in the news does not in anyway mean that there's public outrage about it. By that logic there's basically a full scale uprising going on right now because Paris Hilton was sentenced to do hard time.
And seriously, although over 70% of the american population writes down that they are christian under religious views on the census (so, really, make that over 70% of the people who correctly fill out a census form), that does not mean there would not be complaints if either movie was shown in school. First off, a large portion of that 70% is bound to be not practicing, in the old school terms of "I was raised methodyst, but I haven't been to church since I was six" or "I was baptised, so I guess I'm Catholic". Secondly, Do you really think every single one of those 70% supports religion taught in public schools? You'd be a fool if you did.
Anyways, you'd have grounds for complaints based on just the level of violence in passion - complaints from the religious and the non-religious alike. Throw in the argument of teaching religion in school, an argument that has been brought up in the supreme court numerous times, and you'd have to be a completely biased to claim it wouldn't be an issue.
-
you'd have to be a completely biased to claim it wouldn't be an issue.
Bingo.
-
You know that would be the oddest thing, if there was suddenly a frequency of lawsuits for schools showing brokeback.
-
You know that would be the oddest thing, if there was suddenly a frequency of lawsuits for schools showing brokeback.
Or if students get crafty and sneak Brokeback into class then claim the teachers made them watch it! Kinda like that South Park episode with the magic M word :P
-
I wonder if the notion of homosexuality as "disgusting" is due to nature or nurture? I have all my cash on nurture. No one is born into thinking boy on boy action is "gross," just like no kid is born thinking "black people are inferior to whites." So- admit it or not, reacting in "disgust" to behavior is a clear sign of judgement and disapproval. Talk is cheap- "I don't care what people do!" -actions speak much louder. Don't try kidding yourself to think otherwise.
I have some questions.
A male child that sees his father degrade, beat, or disrespect his mother is more likely to do the same to girls in his classroom. Is it a teacher's place to try and inform the student that this is inappropriate behavior, or should the teacher simply stick to math/science/history lessons?
A hispanic girl is raised her whole life to be a good wife, a homemaker, and she's never been encouraged to pursue education outside of high school. Is it a teacher's place to show the girl that her life can be so much more than she ever was taught, or should the teacher simply stick to math/science/history lessons?
I ask these both because my mother is a teacher. My mother has faced both of these issues. Her actions in these cases led to children whose futures were far brighter after they met my mother than before. My mother has also been put in the Who's Who of Teaching about 20 times. Teachers are more than simple educators of fact. I believe it is also their role to expose kids to information and to experience outside of what a child might have witnessed on their own. That's what separates a good teacher from a bad teacher.
If you want your kid to be a zombie to your will, then homeschool them. If you want your kid to gain some practical, worldly education, send them to public schools. If you want your kid to have a semi-zombie semi-worldly education, send them to private schools. Personally, I hope my taxes go to hiring teachers that expand minds, not to teachers that keep kids living in the cave of family experience.
Brokeback Mountain is R because it deals with homosexuality in a semi-graphic manner. Showing two guys sex, even if it's only implied (as in the movie), is far, far too terrifying for most audiences. Heaven forbid two people love each other and want to express it through physical interaction. Violence, on the other hand, well that is something that is great. Let's show hate, killing, and destruction and make it more acceptable than consentual affection. That makes a lot of sense.
Hell, look at most G-rated movies. They almost ALL have some sort of violence in them. They almost ALL have some sort of heterosexual romance in them. Give me a break. This world of double standards and false value systems is completely ridiculous.
Straight people need to get over themselves.
Oh- "Hi." I come back after a long departure to find this junk. It's kinda sad. I mean, really, isn't shit like SC2 or something more worth you efforts than another drawn out "I don't hate homos, I just hate seeing them" conversation?
-
Hey folk, long time no see. You need to post more.
PS, don't dis on homeschoolers :P
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_death_camp_of_tolerance
That episode summed up neatly how I feel. kthnxbye
-
Folk! Long time no see. I was thinking about you in these threads, this one and the one
over on Serious Topics. [Edit: Actually, the other thread is right here, on rappers being tough. I was confusing it with nick's fundamentalism thing.] I was wondering on your take on it all. I see your point. I feel very similarly about discussions and depiction of heterosexual activities. This society would much rather see their children exposed to portrayals of war than sex. (Killing babies is alright, making them is not--you know the cliche.) While I wish that things were different, the fact is that they are not, and that parents are fully entitled to determine if, when and how the taboo matters are openly discussed with their children. A teacher can't take it upon herself to force the issue behind their backs in conspiratorial secrecy. If you read my other post here, you no doubt noticed that I completely avoided focusing on the clandestine subject matter in the classroom. It might just as easily have been communism, or some rabid anti-male sect of feminism. I'd hate for the real point here to get lost in accusations of homophobia.
-
While I wish that things were different, the fact is that they are not, and that parents are fully entitled to determine if, when and how the taboo matters are openly discussed with their children. A teacher can't take it upon herself to force the issue behind their backs in conspiratorial secrecy.
I'd agree that trying to keep the kids from telling their parents about the movie was a bad move on the teacher's part. I think a parent's role is primarially to help a child understand the world they're exposed to. This, in my opinion, doesn't include sheltering a child from such exposure. Sheltering ultimately leads to confusion when a child is faced with something new. Should everything be left up to the parents when it comes to exposure? The easy answer is "Parents should be in control of their kids' content!" but we all know that is an impossible task. Unless you're with your kids 24/7, filtering out the world around them, then you need to focus on providing your child with the tools for understanding new situations. The little girl in this article could have been saved a lot of "trauma" had she been properly equipped to deal with the real world.
I'd hate for the real point here to get lost in accusations of homophobia.
I totally agree. This could have been anything. The problem with this thread and homophobia is the rather lame ways people go about declaring their tolerance. All the "I just don't like seeing two guys kiss" crap is a load. I mean, really, people need to stop kidding themselves when they say they're cool with something. If I told you, "I don't mind black people until I see them on the street," I think it would be safe to say I have a problem with black people. To argue otherwise would be rather ridiculous. Your broccoli example doesn't quite cut it because broccoli is something you experience. It's a physical sensation. It's not a trained response based on decades of social training and ignorance.
-
The easy answer is "Parents should be in control of their kids' content!" but we all know that is an impossible task. Unless you're with your kids 24/7, filtering out the world around them, then you need to focus on providing your child with the tools for understanding new situations. The little girl in this article could have been saved a lot of "trauma" had she been properly equipped to deal with the real world.
I can tell you from personal experience that dedicated fulltime parents can and do filter all unwanted exposure from their children's lives, except for the time they spend in school. When someone is determined to be vigilant, even schooltime is going to be structured to the point where only a failure of trust such as this one can lead to undesired exposures. Brief random exceptions are going to be jarring to the child's indoctrination, and can be dealt with more easily as they happen. The child is going to cling to the safe view of the world that loving parents provide, and will be only too happy to dismiss incongruous experiences along with the boogeyman. As the teenage years advance, the "straight and narrow" becomes increasingly difficult, but then again, if the parents haven't by then done the job of molding the character of their child to reflect their own, they never will. I'm sorry that you feel it is not up to parents to do this. I couldn't disagree more. Morality has nothing to do with fairness, and no one has the right to impose theirs on other families, not even out of some perceived sense of higher social purpose.
-
Come on Folk! If it was a case of two guys being affectionate etc., I wouldn't have had an issue with the movie being shown to kids.... really.
My problem was the fact that they were shown to have anal sex. How is that homophobia? If it was a hetrosexual couple, I'd have the same objections.
-
Morality has nothing to do with fairness, and no one has the right to impose theirs on other families, not even out of some perceived sense of higher social purpose.
-
Well, in all fairness, Cobra, you do have more experience at being a parent than me (thank God!). I'm sure that parenthood comes with a different attachment to the raising of children than my own, rather utopian viewpoint. I respect the difference.
I'm sorry that you feel it is not up to parents to do this. I couldn't disagree more. Morality has nothing to do with fairness, and no one has the right to impose theirs on other families, not even out of some perceived sense of higher social purpose.
That first part is a tad on the judgemental side. I don't feel my lack of common viewpoint requires sympathy on your part. ;) As for the latter part, it's a toss up. Morality of the family vs. morality of the society vs. morality of the individual- there's no clear-cut end all be all. If a family teaches values that negatively affect society, then perhaps it is society's place to correct those values. The same can be said about values that affect the life of the individual. Who is really the deciding factor? I don't think most people are really qualified for parenthood, nor is the government, nor are religious institutions.
At any rate, I'm gonna fly off into some grand existential conversation about life, living, existance, and universal love/compassion. It's Utopian. I know it. I look at this story and I don't see what the initial problem was because I just don't agree with the popular concept of the family's role.
PUG- hehe.. they don't "show anal sex." They show a guy spit in his hand and another guy wince. It's not like they broke out the porn music and show the guy taking it missionary style or something. Come on, you big prude. :P Why would anal sex be any different than vaginal sex anyway? It's a dick. It's a hole. It's two people wanting to put dick in hole. Why does it matter? oO
-
Yea I should be more clear.
It isn't just because it is 'anal sex'. The only reason I mentioned only anal sex, is because that was what was shown. If it were vaginal sex I'd have the same position. Any form of sex shouldn't be shown to twelve year olds in my opinion.
Also it is good to have you back here.
Care bears staaaareeee.
I preferred the cousins that had other animal forms. That lion one was cool.
-
Fahrenheit 9/11 Shown By A Teacher (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=fahrenheit+9%2F11+shown+by+teacher&btnG=Search)
If you look at this first search, you'll that about half of the people here are ok with showing Fahrenheit 9/11. However, they'll only allow this if they also show Farenhype 9/11, a film where its sole purpose is to ridicule and debunk Fahrenheit 9/11. Whats the point of of showing Fahrenheit 9/11, if they're just going to follow it with a movie that tries to make it irrelevant? It wouldn't be fair, these people want a biased view shown to their kids. The only fair thing to do would be to show a movie debunking Farenhype 9/11.
Brokeback Shown By A Teacher (http://www.google.com/search?q=brokeback+mountain+shown+by+a+teacher&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=m1k&start=540&sa=N)
I'm not sure what you need (personally) to experience to call something a "public outcry", gpw. I'd like to think this should be good enough, look at all the results pertaining to this case. Its not an isolated incident, its all over the net. ABC, MSNBC, Fox News,the Post, NY Times and every other major news outlet. Just because it didn't happen to you, someone you know or in your back yard, it doesn't mean it has been isolated. Its no more quarantined than Katrina, Iraq or 9/11, its out there man.
The Passion Shown By A Teacher (http://www.google.com/search?q=the+passion+of+the+christ+shown+by+a+teacher&hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=Ek5&start=0&sa=N)
I was only able to find one article about The Passion being banned in a community college in Florida, the ban was later lifted. Other than that, the movie has been shown in schools, recommended by teachers and the target of field trips by whole church congregations (filled with children). Hell, most of the results of this search were people saying the same thing I was: comparing the consequences of showing this movie instead of Brokeback. I think we would be kidding ourselves if we thought the backlash of would be the same if this movie, where people saw as families in droves, were shown in schools.
It could be possible that the 70% of those Christians aren't full fledged Christians, but how do you know their Christian morals aren't still intact? How do you know that those non-full fledged Christians wouldn't take the side of their religion?
-
Well, in all fairness, Cobra, you do have more experience at being a parent than me (thank God!). I'm sure that parenthood comes with a different attachment to the raising of children than my own, rather utopian viewpoint. I respect the difference.That first part is a tad on the judgemental side. I don't feel my lack of common viewpoint requires sympathy on your part. ;) As for the latter part, it's a toss up. Morality of the family vs. morality of the society vs. morality of the individual- there's no clear-cut end all be all. If a family teaches values that negatively affect society, then perhaps it is society's place to correct those values. The same can be said about values that affect the life of the individual. Who is really the deciding factor? I don't think most people are really qualified for parenthood, nor is the government, nor are religious institutions.
At this point, we need to defer to politics, don't we? In effect it's a swearing match. "Yes, I can force my morality on others!" "No you can't!" "Yes I can!!" "No! You CAN'T!!" ad nauseam. It's an argument that someone is going to have to win and someone else is going to have to lose. They may even trade places repeatedly, based on the political climate.
-
Fahrenheit 9/11 Shown By A Teacher (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=fahrenheit+9%2F11+shown+by+teacher&btnG=Search)
If you look at this first search, you'll that about half of the people here are ok with showing Fahrenheit 9/11. However, they'll only allow this if they also show Farenhype 9/11, a film where its sole purpose is to ridicule and debunk Fahrenheit 9/11. Whats the point of of showing Fahrenheit 9/11, if they're just going to follow it with a movie that tries to make it irrelevant? It wouldn't be fair, these people want a biased view shown to their kids. The only fair thing to do would be to show a movie debunking Farenhype 9/11.
Nicely done, you just managed to single handedly show what's wrong with the entire public school system as well as what will inevitably lead to the social decay of America in the near or not so near future. I'll let you figure out how you did that - I'll give you a hint, it's the third sentence.
" I'm not sure what you need (personally) to experience to call something a "public outcry", gpw. I'd like to think this should be good enough, look at all the results pertaining to this case. Its not an isolated incident, its all over the net. ABC, MSNBC, Fox News,the Post, NY Times and every other major news outlet. Just because it didn't happen to you, someone you know or in your back yard, it doesn't mean it has been isolated. Its no more quarantined than Katrina, Iraq or 9/11, its out there man."
I don't really need to expierience anything (personally), but seriously (and I'm trying not to be a dick here), you should probably learn the difference between the words 'public' and 'media' as well as 'outcry' and 'exposure', because aparently we're talking about two different things. To illustrate:
"There was a huge public outcry when Apple released their video ipod"
http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=brokeback+mountain+shown+by+a+teacher&word2=Video+Ipod+released
While you're in the dictionary there you might also want to read back and look at the context in which I used the word 'isolated'.
Here's another hint: Since all your google hits and media stories are only reffering to one incident, and that's what we're basing this on, we can therefore conclude that this (the situation including the complaint and lawsuit)is most likely an isolated incident.
" I was only able to find one article about The Passion being banned in a community college in Florida, the ban was later lifted".
Yeah, that doesn't count. It was banned from being shown on the premises of a community college (not the same thing as a public high school) by a student group. Banned because risk-management dictated that the chances of a complaint and/or suit were high.
"Other than that, the movie has been shown in schools,"
I see no evidence of this. I'm not denying it hasn't happened, but you haven't put forth any evidence of it being shown in a public school classroom. Now, that could mean it has been shown without incident, but I think given the secondary option (it just hasn't been shown), the fragmented religious views of the population, and the civil law enviroment in America, I'd bet on the later.
"recommended by teachers"
Irrelevant, the social or political views of public school teachers in not the basis of the argument at hand. They can reccomend a student watch whatever they want (within reason I imagine) on their own time without fear of reprisal. It's what they actually subject them to in the classroom that is the issue here (for most people, personally, I'm only criticizing the judgement of the teacher).
field trips by whole church congregations (filled with children). "
Also Irrelevant (even more so this time).
"Hell, most of the results of this search were people saying the same thing I was: comparing the consequences of showing this movie instead of Brokeback."
Maybe so, but that doesn't actually prove (or really mean) anything. A bunch of people on the internet compairing two movies which have been deemed controversial by certain groups? It's not only an improper appeal to authority, it's also ludicrous that you'd think just mentioning that brings anything to the debate.
I think we would be kidding ourselves if we thought the backlash of would be the same if this movie, where people saw as families in droves, were shown in schools.
WE would be, the backlash would be much more considering it would be very close to a breach of the "can not foster or preclude" rule of religion in public schools as well as the very strict "teachers and administrators are prohibited from encouraging or discouraging religion or religious beliefs" guideline. And by guideline I mean 'lose your job, get a new career, change your name, and get ready to get your ass sued off because these are federal guidelines based on precedents set forth in supreme court ruilings" kind of guidleines.
"It could be possible that the 70% of those Christians aren't full fledged Christians, but how do you know their Christian morals aren't still intact? How do you know that those non-full fledged Christians wouldn't take the side of their religion?"
To the first part of that, I don't know that, they probably are still in tact. To the second part, I come to my conclusion through the following methods:
-First, I look at the fact that the majority of Americans filling out their census data and handing it it claim to be over 70% christian.
-Secondly, I make the educated assumption that these Americans are a large part of the portion of the population that feels some sort of civic duty or responsibility. I base this on the fact that they participated in the census.
-I conclude that they are also likely to vote in elections and refferendums since their sense of civic duty would urge them to.
-I look at the fact that they are all of the same (general) religion, and as such are a segmented portion of society with many of the same concerns and values. This cross cutting cleavage overrides other socio-political cleavages such as income, race, and georaphical location. It enables them to be easily mobilized if need be, but it probably isn't needed because their values are already so inline.
-I think about my knowledge of the American political system, the nature of the democratic republic in itself, and the ammount of time it would take to 'stack the supreme court deck'
-I recall data on the declining percentage of the population that claims to be christians on census data in recent history.
-I note that America is in no way a theocracy at this point in time.
-I conclude, since chirstians have long been the overwhelming majority religion, as evidenced by the census data, and the educated assumption that those participating in the census also vote that since America is not a theocracy in any way, that a large majority of those over 70% believe in the seperation of church and state, the theory of the two swords, and are Americans first and Christians second.
Or I could just come to the conlusion by looking at the fact that religion in schools is still roughly 35 times as controversal as homosexuality in school.
But, I'll go out of my way and give you the benefit of the doubt here. Lets say they show it in schools all the time, and 70% of the kids and their families are totally in to it. Do you seriously think that in a class of 35 the other 10 or so kids in that class wouldn't raise a complaint (and it only takes one for it to be a news story). Atheists and agnostics aside, that leaves about 2 jewish, muslim, or whatever kids who's parents probably would not be happy. Consideringt he lawsuit-trigger happy nature of your society do you really think they wouldn't raise hell when the rewards are so high and the probably of return is likewise high? Fuck, that's also ignoring the Protestant denominations that publicly took issue with the film. The likely hood for trouble when showing Passion of the Christ far outweighs that of Brokeback Mountain. Precedent has been set, and even if the school/teacher/board could somehow argue that it was being taught based on historical signifigance (with some christian movies this is allowed, here it wouldn't fly) they still have to deal with the question of why they are showing such objectable content in a public school.
-
What I don't get is why the movie was even shown in the first place ( sexual content of the movie aside), it doesn't really have any educational value, at least none that I can think of, it is more or less a love story. Also, the teacher knew what she was doing would get her in trouble, showing a Rated R movie to 12 year olds is going to piss someone's parents off whether it has gay or straight sex. In high school, we had to get a permission slip signed just to watch Braveheart for our World History class (we were studying the Dark and Medieval Ages) because of the violence (the teacher even went through the trouble of editing the sex scene out of the movie) if the teacher who showed Brokeback Mountain didn't want to get in trouble she should have covered her ass better than she did.
-
In high school, we had to get a permission slip signed just to watch Braveheart for our World History class
OK that's weird. Braveheart had very little historical accuracy.
-
OK that's weird. Braveheart had very little historical accuracy.
True, she even pointed that out, I mainly brought it up though because of the permission slip.
-
OK that's weird. Braveheart had very little historical accuracy.
Lies. My whole understanding of that time period comes from Braveheart.
-
Did a search on google:
http://www.atfantasy.com/view/The%20Dreaded%20History%20and%20Braveheart%20Rant
It is still my all time favorite movie, Braveheart is. I love it to death...
FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM MMMMMMMM
-
Nicely done, you just managed to single handedly show what's wrong with the entire public school system as well as what will inevitably lead to the social decay of America in the near or not so near future. I'll let you figure out how you did that - I'll give you a hint, it's the third sentence.
" I'm not sure what you need (personally) to experience to call something a "public outcry", gpw. I'd like to think this should be good enough, look at all the results pertaining to this case. Its not an isolated incident, its all over the net. ABC, MSNBC, Fox News,the Post, NY Times and every other major news outlet. Just because it didn't happen to you, someone you know or in your back yard, it doesn't mean it has been isolated. Its no more quarantined than Katrina, Iraq or 9/11, its out there man."
I don't really need to expierience anything (personally), but seriously (and I'm trying not to be a dick here), you should probably learn the difference between the words 'public' and 'media' as well as 'outcry' and 'exposure', because aparently we're talking about two different things. To illustrate:
"There was a huge public outcry when Apple released their video ipod"
http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=brokeback+mountain+shown+by+a+teacher&word2=Video+Ipod+released
While you're in the dictionary there you might also want to read back and look at the context in which I used the word 'isolated'.
Here's another hint: Since all your google hits and media stories are only reffering to one incident, and that's what we're basing this on, we can therefore conclude that this (the situation including the complaint and lawsuit)is most likely an isolated incident.
" I was only able to find one article about The Passion being banned in a community college in Florida, the ban was later lifted".
Yeah, that doesn't count. It was banned from being shown on the premises of a community college (not the same thing as a public high school) by a student group. Banned because risk-management dictated that the chances of a complaint and/or suit were high.
"Other than that, the movie has been shown in schools,"
I see no evidence of this. I'm not denying it hasn't happened, but you haven't put forth any evidence of it being shown in a public school classroom. Now, that could mean it has been shown without incident, but I think given the secondary option (it just hasn't been shown), the fragmented religious views of the population, and the civil law enviroment in America, I'd bet on the later.
"recommended by teachers"
Irrelevant, the social or political views of public school teachers in not the basis of the argument at hand. They can reccomend a student watch whatever they want (within reason I imagine) on their own time without fear of reprisal. It's what they actually subject them to in the classroom that is the issue here (for most people, personally, I'm only criticizing the judgement of the teacher).
field trips by whole church congregations (filled with children). "
Also Irrelevant (even more so this time).
"Hell, most of the results of this search were people saying the same thing I was: comparing the consequences of showing this movie instead of Brokeback."
Maybe so, but that doesn't actually prove (or really mean) anything. A bunch of people on the internet compairing two movies which have been deemed controversial by certain groups? It's not only an improper appeal to authority, it's also ludicrous that you'd think just mentioning that brings anything to the debate.
I think we would be kidding ourselves if we thought the backlash of would be the same if this movie, where people saw as families in droves, were shown in schools.
WE would be, the backlash would be much more considering it would be very close to a breach of the "can not foster or preclude" rule of religion in public schools as well as the very strict "teachers and administrators are prohibited from encouraging or discouraging religion or religious beliefs" guideline. And by guideline I mean 'lose your job, get a new career, change your name, and get ready to get your ass sued off because these are federal guidelines based on precedents set forth in supreme court ruilings" kind of guidleines.
"It could be possible that the 70% of those Christians aren't full fledged Christians, but how do you know their Christian morals aren't still intact? How do you know that those non-full fledged Christians wouldn't take the side of their religion?"
To the first part of that, I don't know that, they probably are still in tact. To the second part, I come to my conclusion through the following methods:
-First, I look at the fact that the majority of Americans filling out their census data and handing it it claim to be over 70% christian.
-Secondly, I make the educated assumption that these Americans are a large part of the portion of the population that feels some sort of civic duty or responsibility. I base this on the fact that they participated in the census.
-I conclude that they are also likely to vote in elections and refferendums since their sense of civic duty would urge them to.
-I look at the fact that they are all of the same (general) religion, and as such are a segmented portion of society with many of the same concerns and values. This cross cutting cleavage overrides other socio-political cleavages such as income, race, and georaphical location. It enables them to be easily mobilized if need be, but it probably isn't needed because their values are already so inline.
-I think about my knowledge of the American political system, the nature of the democratic republic in itself, and the ammount of time it would take to 'stack the supreme court deck'
-I recall data on the declining percentage of the population that claims to be christians on census data in recent history.
-I note that America is in no way a theocracy at this point in time.
-I conclude, since chirstians have long been the overwhelming majority religion, as evidenced by the census data, and the educated assumption that those participating in the census also vote that since America is not a theocracy in any way, that a large majority of those over 70% believe in the seperation of church and state, the theory of the two swords, and are Americans first and Christians second.
Or I could just come to the conlusion by looking at the fact that religion in schools is still roughly 35 times as controversal as homosexuality in school.
But, I'll go out of my way and give you the benefit of the doubt here. Lets say they show it in schools all the time, and 70% of the kids and their families are totally in to it. Do you seriously think that in a class of 35 the other 10 or so kids in that class wouldn't raise a complaint (and it only takes one for it to be a news story). Atheists and agnostics aside, that leaves about 2 jewish, muslim, or whatever kids who's parents probably would not be happy. Consideringt he lawsuit-trigger happy nature of your society do you really think they wouldn't raise hell when the rewards are so high and the probably of return is likewise high? Fuck, that's also ignoring the Protestant denominations that publicly took issue with the film. The likely hood for trouble when showing Passion of the Christ far outweighs that of Brokeback Mountain. Precedent has been set, and even if the school/teacher/board could somehow argue that it was being taught based on historical signifigance (with some christian movies this is allowed, here it wouldn't fly) they still have to deal with the question of why they are showing such objectable content in a public school.
Damn, thats a lot of text. Here goes:
Sorry, I misunderstood what you mean't by isolated incident. I thought you mean't it was a small story that no one really knew or cared about and thats why its not being covered by the media like Imus or Schiavo events. Yes, this is the only lawsuit that I've heard of concerning Brokeback Mountain shown at school, but its also the only lawsuit I've ever heard of because a movie was shown at school. This girl is claiming she has suffered "psychological distress" and needed therapy after seeing this movie. The grandfather also had this to say:
It is very important to me that my children not be exposed to this," said Kenneth Richardson, Turner's guardian. "The teacher knew she was not supposed to do this.
And...
This was the last straw," he said. "I feel the lawsuit was necessary because of the warning I had already given them on the literature they were giving out to children to read. I told them it was against our faith.
This lawsuit is obviously about their religion, I don't think this guy would have any problem with The Passion being shown.
Check out this Google Fight (http://www.googlefight.com/index.php?lang=en_GB&word1=video+ipod+released&word2=vista+released), after posting your Google Fight I think you're trying to say that the video ipod is bigger than this news story. Al though I do believe this Brokeback story is a public outcry, does it mean it isn't one if it gets less exposure than another story? A lot of the people talking about this are in a forum like this one, bloggers and people leaving comments under news articles. As to whether they are for it or against it shouldn't matter, the public is voicing it's opinion about this.
I honestly think The Passion has been shown without incident because most people are ok with it. You called many of my points irrelevant, but what I'm trying to show is that a lot of people are ok with their child seeing The Passion. They went as a whole family, they call it a family outing. Having it shown in schools comes off as the school system finally doing something right for a change in their eyes. I couldn't find evidence of any movie being shown in any specific school other than Brokeback. I mean shit, you can call that guy who tried to get "in God we trust" removed an isolated incident.
The social and political views of the teachers is very relevant here, this is what the base of the story is about. Some teacher showing her kids a movie (that she thought was ok), but parents didn't like. If you were religious and a teacher told your child to check out Brokeback, wouldn't you be pissed off? If you were a hardcore liberal and the teacher told you to watch...Farenhype 9/11, would you be pissed? I only use The Passion as an opponent to Brokeback because they're both recent, rated "R" and controversial ( I guess). I brought up the fact of searches coming up with the same comparison as myself because I though it was a funny coincidence, thats all.
The Passion (TP) would never get as much fallout as Brokeback Mountain (BM, I'm sick of typing these two), especially in a lawsuit. The courts are biased towards christianity even to this very day. When you get sworn in court you're forced to use the Bible, only a handful allow you to bring your own religious text. A priest doesn't have to testify against someone who has spilled their guts in confession about a crime, hell, a priest is considered a reputable witness. Why should someone be considered a more trustworthy person than I am, because they're a priest?
I agree that all of the 70% of the christians that make up our country aren't practicing christians, but we don't know how many really are or how much or little they practice. However, I don't see the connection of voting christians believing in the separation of church and state. I think what you're saying is that if 70% of voters are christian, how come Jesus isn't on our national flag correct? Well, its because the founders of this country didn't make it that way. They set up a series of checks, balances and hurdles to stop the influence of many devices like religion, but that doesn't stop christians from trying though. This is why abortion is a big controversy and illegal in some states, this is why the morning after pill is being banned in stores, its why we have blue laws, no stem cell research, "Intelligent Design" taught in schools and a president who claims God talks to him directly (shouldn't he be on meds for that and not prez?). Christians already have their stake in our legal system, its always been there and it always will be.
I respect your opinion about christianity being more controversial than being gay, but I can't see it. People don't get killed because they're christians (unless its the Crusades), they get bashed for being gay. There aren't any camps advertising to reverse your christianity, people don't protest at catholic schools or try to stop christian school groups from forming. Look at this all gay school (http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/may/07050402.html) being protested against by christian parents. I find it funny that the students are made out as the bad guys here when all they want to do is go to school. I guess the gays were right to compare their struggle with the struggle blacks had 40 years ago. I find it even funnier that the school was eventually forced to take in straight students (http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/7/112006c.asp) as well. Gays can't have clubs, go to school or even get married, but christianity is considered the epitome of normalcy. Christians have it easy.
I'm tired, so I'm going to wrap this up. I do think that muslims/jews/atheists/etc would complain about being shown TP, but what good would it do? Hell maybe they have, but it was just swept under the rug like an alter boy's cum stained church garb. Maybe it's only being shown to classes that reside in the "bible belt" or "red states". Perhaps if we wait, it will happen sometime in the near future.
-
Nick, I read your post earlier today but don't really have any time to reply to it for at least a few days as I'm swamped with school and work . Sorry about that, but as of right now I will say that a lot of what we're arguing about is the kind of thing you can't really prove logically because there's always another explanation (are there no complaints about Passion because no one complains or because no one shows it...and so on) and there's no actual statistical evidence either way. You can tell me there's a public outrage based on forum posts, but I can just argue that those are the people who are predisposed to complain about things like this in forums anyways, and it goes on and on.
Beyond that, we're just looking at things from two different perspectives. I could argue that my perspective has the ability to more accurately evaluate the state of affairs as I'm far more removed from it - geographically and ideologically, but then again those could be detrimental qualities when applied to what we're talking about. Anyways, until at least the middle of next week we're probably just going to have to agree to disagree.
-
Wow there are some really good posts in this thread on both sides. I think that yeah, there are some logical fallacies , such as believing it's wrong to show Farhenheit 9/11 and then Farhenhype 9/11... I think this is only fair to show both. But there are definately good points brought up.
nick is right in that it's a lot easier to be "a regular Christian" or even "a fundamentalist Christian" than it is to be "gay." (I'm using quotes here to denote the average type of person that would normally be labelled as such.) However I disagree with the notion that Christians have it completely easy. I think that Christians are feeling there is an immense pressure at this time in U.S. history to almost be ashamed of believing what they believe. There has already been a massive secularization movement which has diluted "Merry Christmas" to "Happy Holidays."
I read in a recent Wired magazine about the surge in the number of what I'm going to call "fundamentalist atheists:" people who believe that it isn't enough to not believe in God and tolerate those who do believe. They think there should be no tolerance whatsoever, that the religious should be regarded as illogical kooks and should be silenced.
So anyway, yeah I think it's probably easier to be the average Christian than the average gay person, but I don't think it's necessarily as easy as you think to be Christian.
-
It depends largely on where you live, too. I don't live in the Midwest. I live in the San Francisco Bay Area. Oh yeah, boy, I find like-minded people all over the place.
-
Wow there are some really good posts in this thread on both sides. I think that yeah, there are some logical fallacies , such as believing it's wrong to show Farhenheit 9/11 and then Farhenhype 9/11... I think this is only fair to show both. But there are definately good points brought up.
nick is right in that it's a lot easier to be "a regular Christian" or even "a fundamentalist Christian" than it is to be "gay." (I'm using quotes here to denote the average type of person that would normally be labelled as such.) However I disagree with the notion that Christians have it completely easy. I think that Christians are feeling there is an immense pressure at this time in U.S. history to almost be ashamed of believing what they believe. There has already been a massive secularization movement which has diluted "Merry Christmas" to "Happy Holidays."
I read in a recent Wired magazine about the surge in the number of what I'm going to call "fundamentalist atheists:" people who believe that it isn't enough to not believe in God and tolerate those who do believe. They think there should be no tolerance whatsoever, that the religious should be regarded as illogical kooks and should be silenced.
So anyway, yeah I think it's probably easier to be the average Christian than the average gay person, but I don't think it's necessarily as easy as you think to be Christian.
I agree that christians don't have it completely easy, but I disagree with them being made to feel ashamed of themselves. The "Happy Holidays" deal wasn't mean't to put christians out, its supposed to allow everyone else feel welcomed in. I think I was in third grade when they started calling it "winter break" instead of "Christmas break", of course I was only eight and just wanted my two weeks off.
I'm positive there are "fundamentalist atheists" out there, theres always an extreme to...anything. I don't consider myself one of these people, I can truthfully say that the most I pursue the subject is strictly on this forum. What I'm about to say isn't mean't to offend anyone, its just how I feel about the situation. I think pious people are brainwashed or using religion for personal gain, mostly the former though. I find it sick that televangelist are making millions a year for spreading God's word, I never thought of religion as a business.
It depends largely on where you live, too. I don't live in the Midwest. I live in the San Francisco Bay Area. Oh yeah, boy, I find like-minded people all over the place.
Location has a lot to do with it too, I was born and raised in a small hick town without many gays. In highschool I think there was a gay kid and a lesbian couple that went there, I have no idea what their names were because they were simply known as "the gay kid" and "the lesbians". Haha, I'm not even sure if they were actually gay, but they were made fun of because of it.
-
My hardline answer to "Happy Holidays" is "which ones are you celebrating? I'm celebrating Christmas". But being an agnostic and not generally confrontational, it's not one that I actually ever use. I just think it to myself. The fact is that there's nothing wrong with Christians celebrating Christmas and saying "Merry Christmas". Anyone who tries to silence or sabotage that has an enemy right here.
Everyone has become a hardliner. Have you noticed? "Fundamentalist atheists" is only one example. Everyone not only has to get their way. They also have to insult, and if possible, destroy any other point of view. It's like living in a philosophical warzone, and I hate it. To all intolerant assholes, eat shit and die.
-
Can someone explain to me why after reading the last few posts, the Go Go's song "Vacation" is looping in my head? It's quite disturbing.
:o
-
Not being familiar with it (or at leat the title--I may have heard it) I have to join you in your :o.
-
Sorry, guess I derailed the thread. My bad.
-
If you want your kid to be a zombie to your will, then homeschool them. If you want your kid to gain some practical, worldly education, send them to public schools. If you want your kid to have a semi-zombie semi-worldly education, send them to private schools. Personally, I hope my taxes go to hiring teachers that expand minds, not to teachers that keep kids living in the cave of family experience.
The only thing I'm going to quote and comment on is this paragraph. It's too sensitive to comment on the others.
I've gone to homeschool, public school and private school. What did I enjoy the most? Homeschool. It's not a matter of being able to control a person when you get them in homeschool. The most outspoken, independent people I know have a huge background as far as homeschool is concerned. Homeschooling can totally open a person to a whole other world of possibilities and growth compared to sending them to public or private school.
I went to private and public school before doing homeschool. During homeschooling though I learned much much more. Aside from the homeschooling program of CALVERT.. I had theater classes, music, film, cinematography, computer classes, and more. I had a full schedule and lots of interaction with others.
My will is my own, and I dont' think I'm a zombie to the world.
The experience I gained was more than what I would have gained in a public or private school. How do I gauge this? I'm still in touch with my classmates from private and public school.
-
I'd second that.
-
The only thing I'm going to quote and comment on is this paragraph. It's too sensitive to comment on the others.
I've gone to homeschool, public school and private school. What did I enjoy the most? Homeschool. It's not a matter of being able to control a person when you get them in homeschool. The most outspoken, independent people I know have a huge background as far as homeschool is concerned. Homeschooling can totally open a person to a whole other world of possibilities and growth compared to sending them to public or private school.
I went to private and public school before doing homeschool. During homeschooling though I learned much much more. Aside from the homeschooling program of CALVERT.. I had theater classes, music, film, cinematography, computer classes, and more. I had a full schedule and lots of interaction with others.
My will is my own, and I dont' think I'm a zombie to the world.
The experience I gained was more than what I would have gained in a public or private school. How do I gauge this? I'm still in touch with my classmates from private and public school.
I think homeschooling is evil, but thats for another topic.
-
I think homeschooling is evil, but thats for another topic.
No, that's too easy. Raisa spent some quality time composing her thoughts on this. She shared her experience with all 3 available options, something the rest of us can't do, because we don't have it. To say "it's evil" and nothing else is no answer.
I missed the bit about folk's perceived difference between the 3 options. I'm not surprised he feels this way. It's clear to me that he thinks people have no right to mold their children's mind in any way which conflicts with his philosophy of life. If there is indeed a cultural war happening in this country, he wants us to surrender our children to the enemy without firing a shot. People in hell want ice water too.
-
I don't even know what to say to something like this. Does nick just have a daily quota of thoughtless, blanket statements he needs to make every day? I really can't figure it out.
-
No, that's too easy. Raisa spent some quality time composing her thoughts on this. She shared her experience with all 3 available options, something the rest of us can't do, because we don't have it. To say "it's evil" and nothing else is no answer.
I missed the bit about folk's perceived difference between the 3 options. I'm not surprised he feels this way. It's clear to me that he thinks people have no right to mold their children's mind in any way which conflicts with his philosophy of life. If there is indeed a cultural war happening in this country, he wants us to surrender our children to the enemy without firing a shot. People in hell want ice water too.
My comment wasn't a cop out, I thinks its way off topic to discuss homeschooling in a thread about Brokeback Mountain. However, nothing has ever stayed on topic here, so:
My mom is a preschool/kindergarten teacher who also tutors kids in her spare time who have trouble reading. She works with public school kids and with homeschooled kids and she's told me that the homeschooled kids are smarter than the public school kids. However, homeschooled kids aren't smarter because they're homeschooled, they're smarter because...they just are.
We all know what happens to smart kids/nerds/quiet kids in public schools, they get picked on. A lot of these parents would rather have their child be homeschooled than to have them learn social skills. Then of course theres the parents that want to have control over their children and teach them whatever they want. Lets not forget that homeschooling parents don't need state teaching certificates, would you want someone under qualified teaching your kids?
To sum this up, I think parents homeschool for the following reasons:
1. To teaching their kids whatever they want.
2. Lonely housewives don't want to send their babies out of the house.
3. So their nerdy kid won't get picked on at school.
Sure, I believe parents have to right to teach their kids whatever they want (reluctantly). These kids should also have the right to a vast learning experience where they get to explore topics that haven't been pre approved by mom. What are these kids going to do when they graduate? Home college?
-
"Check out this Google Fight, after posting your Google Fight I think you're trying to say that the video ipod is bigger than this news story. Al though I do believe this Brokeback story is a public outcry, does it mean it isn't one if it gets less exposure than another story? A lot of the people talking about this are in a forum like this one, bloggers and people leaving comments under news articles. As to whether they are for it or against it shouldn't matter, the public is voicing it's opinion about this."
No, I was just saying it isn't really a public outcry. From what I've seen there haven't been people marching in the streets because someone showed this in school, just a complaint and maybe some support. I don't think it's something we can use to gauge the opinions of the american people with.
"honestly think The Passion has been shown without incident because most people are ok with it. You called many of my points irrelevant, but what I'm trying to show is that a lot of people are ok with their child seeing The Passion. They went as a whole family, they call it a family outing. Having it shown in schools comes off as the school system finally doing something right for a change in their eyes."
I'd say some people are ok with their child seeing the passion. I'd guess that most wouldn't be ok with their kid seeing it in a public school for a lot of reasons. There would undoubtedly be a few, and a margin in the middle who just didn't want to do anything about it, but there would be some that are pissed off, and it only takes one for it to become a national story really.
"The social and political views of the teachers is very relevant here, this is what the base of the story is about."
I'd argue that their actual views aren't relevant at all. I'd say that the core of the issue is how they want to express those views in the classroom. Even suggesting that the kids view the movie rather than actually showing it is a much better option because of the liability involved.
"The Passion (TP) would never get as much fallout as Brokeback Mountain (BM, I'm sick of typing these two), especially in a lawsuit. The courts are biased towards christianity even to this very day."
That's a pretty bold statement. I can't think of many recent examples to support this, but it doesn't matter. Religion in school is already a supreme court settled case. There are strict guidelines about it set out specifically to make sure schools adhere to the "freedom of religion" aspect of the constitution. That's my main argument here - there's already precedent keeping it out. then again, in a civil case with a jury...who the fuck knows? It would all depend on the social composition of the jury.
"When you get sworn in court you're forced to use the Bible, only a handful allow you to bring your own religious text."
That's pretty much not true. Many states don't even use the bible anymore period, and many allow you to swear on whatever religious book, (lack thereof) you want. I am, however, going off second hand information here and haven't looked up any state by state stats myself. But, to be fair, I got this from a professor in a section of a course focusing on social philosophy in states with vastly differing social, cultural, and racial demographics. He was kind of jackass though.
"A priest doesn't have to testify against someone who has spilled their guts in confession about a crime, hell, a priest is considered a reputable witness. Why should someone be considered a more trustworthy person than I am, because they're a priest?"
You can say the same for doctors, lawyers, psychiatrists, and many other professions. Why is an engineer a more reputable source than an electrician? I don't know, but according to the law they are (judging from the fact that they can act as witnesses for passports).
"However, I don't see the connection of voting christians believing in the separation of church and state."
The point is that just because they are Christian, that doesn't mean that it carries over into every thing they do. It's not necessarily the Christian part of them that makes up their political ideals. It was basically just there to counter your 70% theory. 70% doesn't mean anything at all except the fact that 70% of the people answering census data put down Christian. you can come to a variety of conclusions from that, but again, it's obviously not a litmus test.
"how come Jesus isn't on our national flag correct? Well, its because the founders of this country didn't make it that way. They set up a series of checks, balances and hurdles to stop the influence of many devices like religion, but that doesn't stop christians from trying though."
The constitution means nothing if a majority (especially a 70% majority) doesn't support it...especially in a democratic republic. If that 70% really wanted religion in schools it would be. I just simply set out a simplified scenario of how it could be done (supreme court stacking). Some christians certainly want it (thus, the things you've spoken about), but nowhere near the percentage of the total population you're talking about.
"I respect your opinion about christianity being more controversial than being gay, but I can't see it"
Fair enough, but that's not what I'm saying at all. All I'm saying is that promoting Christianity in public schools is more controversial than promoting sexual tolerance in public schools. Maybe not in some areas like the deep south, but across America as a whole I'd say it certainly is.
"Maybe it's only being shown to classes that reside in the "bible belt" or "red states". "
That's the thing, we're kind of involved in a stupid debate because we can't really know.
As for homeschooling:
You missed
4: public education in America is pretty fucking bad.
-
"how come Jesus isn't on our national flag correct? Well, its because the founders of this country didn't make it that way. They set up a series of checks, balances and hurdles to stop the influence of many devices like religion, but that doesn't stop christians from trying though."
The constitution means nothing if a majority (especially a 70% majority) doesn't support it...especially in a democratic republic. If that 70% really wanted religion in schools it would be. I just simply set out a simplified scenario of how it could be done (supreme court stacking). Some christians certainly want it (thus, the things you've spoken about), but nowhere near the percentage of the total population you're talking about.
No, I don't think so. That's the first thing you've said that I outright disagree with. In the early 60s, I'd say that at least 70% of the people wanted to preserve racial segregation, including ironically some black people, and certainly other less oppressed minorities. The Supreme Court and the rest of the feds imposed integration regardless. The Constitution *is* the law of the land. There is even a mechanism in place to alter it, should enough of the states decide that it needs changing. It's called a Constitutional Convention. I think a 2/3rd majority of the states, regardless of population, is required to pass or repeal an amendment, but I'm not entirely sure now.
-
"The Constitution *is* the law of the land. There is even a mechanism in place to alter it, should enough of the states decide that it needs changing. It's called a Constitutional Convention. I think a 2/3rd majority of the states, regardless of population, is required to pass or repeal an amendment, but I'm not entirely sure now."
It's all strictly theoretical. My point is that the constitution itself is meaningless - it's just words on paper. It's the people's adherence to it and/or willingness to enforce it that gives it power and authority. If a vast majority disagrees with a section of the constitution, yet adheres to it, it says tons about where their priorities lie (state before church).
-
I don't follow. The Constitution forbids the establishment of any religion by the state. That means the state should not endorse any religion, not even with occasional Christian symbolism. Personally, I don't think it's a big deal. But enough people do, so this principle has been brought to the forefront. It's tough to do, because the people who wrote this document are all Christian, and much of the philosophy and ethics of the country derive from Christianity. Yet it's being done, every day.
-
My comment wasn't a cop out, I thinks its way off topic to discuss homeschooling in a thread about Brokeback Mountain. However, nothing has ever stayed on topic here, so:
My mom is a preschool/kindergarten teacher who also tutors kids in her spare time who have trouble reading. She works with public school kids and with homeschooled kids and she's told me that the homeschooled kids are smarter than the public school kids. However, homeschooled kids aren't smarter because they're homeschooled, they're smarter because...they just are.
Nick, read that last sentence again. Stereotyping homeschooled kids that way doesn't make sense. And stereotyping public school kids that way also doesn't make sense. The public school I went to last had the smartest bunch of kids I've ever known. The valedictorian was exempted from ALL math classes in high school and university cause she was so smart. She was never homeschooled. She put the time into studying and was also one of the popular girls in school.
We all know what happens to smart kids/nerds/quiet kids in public schools, they get picked on. A lot of these parents would rather have their child be homeschooled than to have them learn social skills. Then of course theres the parents that want to have control over their children and teach them whatever they want. Lets not forget that homeschooling parents don't need state teaching certificates, would you want someone under qualified teaching your kids?
Smart kids/nerds/quiet kids get picked on.. sounds like you're either one of those or you're one of the ones who like to pick on people.
If I was a parent, I'd rather know my limitations as a teacher rather than put my kid in a school with so called people who are qualified to teach based on a certificate. Just see what happened to the teacher this thread is based on.
My math teacher was really cool because she taught both private and public and home-schooled kids. She opened a school recently and caters to all three types.
To sum this up, I think parents homeschool for the following reasons:
1. To teaching their kids whatever they want.
2. Lonely housewives don't want to send their babies out of the house.
3. So their nerdy kid won't get picked on at school.
ah maybe sometimes you just gotta shut up to stop showing your narrow-mindedness.
Sure, I believe parents have to right to teach their kids whatever they want (reluctantly). These kids should also have the right to a vast learning experience where they get to explore topics that haven't been pre approved by mom. What are these kids going to do when they graduate? Home college?
Nick, vast learning experience.. And not to boast or be arrogant or anything, but I bet I can list down everything I learned and compare notes with you and see what you've learned.
-
Nick, read that last sentence again. Stereotyping homeschooled kids that way doesn't make sense. And stereotyping public school kids that way also doesn't make sense. The public school I went to last had the smartest bunch of kids I've ever known. The valedictorian was exempted from ALL math classes in high school and university cause she was so smart. She was never homeschooled. She put the time into studying and was also one of the popular girls in school.
Smart kids/nerds/quiet kids get picked on.. sounds like you're either one of those or you're one of the ones who like to pick on people.
Of course it makes sense, when the nerds with the grades are homeschooled they make homeschooled kids look smarter. I didn't say only dumb kids went to public school, I'm just saying the more intelligent and socially inept like to learn social studies from mom.
I have no doubt that the smart kids you've ever known happened to go to your public school and that the valedictorian was exempt from all math for life. However, I wouldn't expect any less from avaledictorian. I mean, you don't have much competition to be valedictorian when all of your other classmates aren't even in high school yet.
If I was a parent, I'd rather know my limitations as a teacher rather than put my kid in a school with so called people who are qualified to teach based on a certificate. Just see what happened to the teacher this thread is based on.
Showing Brokeback Mountain has nothing to do with the teacher's teaching ability. I should also point out that she was a substitute, not an actual teacher with a license to teach.
Theres something I need you to clarify for me: are you saying you would rather have an under qualified parent teach your child than a teacher who has gone through years of schooling? Would you rather have some parent operate on you, represent you in court or build you a house without a certificate? You're downplaying the importance of having a competent teacher to try and prove your point.
My math teacher was really cool because she taught both private and public and home-schooled kids. She opened a school recently and caters to all three types.
ah maybe sometimes you just gotta shut up to stop showing your narrow-mindedness.
Nick, vast learning experience.. And not to boast or be arrogant or anything, but I bet I can list down everything I learned and compare notes with you and see what you've learned.
I'm sure your math teacher was really cool, but I doubt it has anything to do with her moonlighting as public school and home school teacher. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that she was just a cool person who happened to teach both...somehow.
I'm not sure what you mean by comparing what we've both learned, I need you to explain that. Are you talking about comparing lesson plans or do you mean a battle of wits like a game of Jeopardy and Trivial Pursuit. If you honestly think you can beat me as easily as you believe, then you should practice the art of modesty...if they taught you that at school.
I know how many of you here would love to stifle me or have me conform into one of flock, but its not gonna happen. I find it absurd that I'm the "narrow minded" person here, you're the one who thinks gay is "disgusting", you think you're smarter than public school kids and you have the audacity to claim that I picked on people in high school?
You flip-flopped a lot in your last post, I know you're on the side of homeschooling so stick to your guns.