Political Correctness

[Lord Protector]

Just for clarity, are you saying it's not okay to be gay, and that people should not be taught it's okay to be gay?

I believe I have written it quite clearly. I don’t like the idea of encouraging little kids to be gay, or feel like anything other than what they were born like.

 

[Famine]

I believe I have written it quite clearly. I don’t like the idea of encouraging little kids to be gay, or feel like anything other than what they were born like.

But by the same token, that means not encouraging them to be straight (or bi) if that's not what they were born like. Not that someone can be encouraged to be a different sexuality anyway.

Schools should not be teaching that straight is better than gay, or gay is better than straight. They should be teaching - like parents should - that there is no "normal" sexuality, that it's not okay to abuse someone for their sexuality, that it is okay to be the sexuality you are, and how to do it safely (which includes not being in damaging relationships, whatever your genital preferences).

And anal sex is something straight couples can do too, and it has its own risks if not done safely.

 

[MatskiMonk]

I believe I have written it quite clearly. I don’t like the idea of encouraging little kids to be gay, or feel like anything other than what they were born like.

I think it's open discussion and understanding that's being encouraged, so they can actually feel like what they were born like - I don't think it's being gay that is being encouraged.

 

[Lord Protector]

But by the same token, that means not encouraging them to be straight (or bi) if that's not what they were born like. Not that someone can be encouraged to be a different sexuality anyway.

I mean if I child is born with a penis, it is a male no matter what it feels like. It can undergo any operation in the world but in the end, its DNA will always be the one of a male individual. If scientists take its bone in 1000 years after its death, they will not care what it felt like and what operations it underwent. They will say "this was a male".

Schools should not be teaching that straight is better than gay, or gay is better than straight. They should be teaching - like parents should - that there is no "normal" sexuality, that it's not okay to abuse someone for their sexuality, that it is okay to be the sexuality you are, and how to do it safely (which includes not being in damaging relationships, whatever your genital preferences).

This I can agree with completely

 

[Liquid]

I mean if I child is born with a penis, it is a male no matter what it feels like. It can undergo any operation in the world but in the end, its DNA will always be the one of a male individual. If scientists take its bone in 1000 years after its death, they will not care what it felt like and what operations it underwent. They will say "this was a male".

What difference does it make to you as an individual if someone else wants to go through gender reassignment surgery?

 

[UKMikey]

Here's a quote from the head of another primary school referenced in the story which is including LGBT+ subjects in its curriculum.

Bewsey Lodge head Emma Wright responded to the vitriol in the comments below the video: “I don’t normally comment on social media however I feel compelled to share some thoughts. It is interesting to read how many people have sexualised the content of our curriculum.

“What we are trying to achieve is a culture of acceptance and respect—put simply, live and let live.

“We teach about love and that love comes in all shapes and sizes. What we are trying to achieve is that children leave us, armed with enough information to make their own informed choices, children who can look at another persons life/situation and say, ‘This is different to my life or the way I feel or think but that’s ok.’

“We also teach about racism, extremism and religion and the same philosophy filters through it all.”

Does this sound like pervert enrichment crap? It certainly did to the far right commenters who bombarded reports on the school's initiative with "homophobic abuse".

 

[Dotini]

What difference does it make to you as an individual if someone else wants to go through gender reassignment surgery?

The most obvious difference it might make is that of payment for the services. If it comes from the pocket of the individual, then no problem. If it comes from public taxation, then that could be a problem.

 

[TexRex]

far right commenters who bombarded reports on the school's initiative with "homophobic abuse"

 

[baldgye]

If it comes from public taxation, then that could be a problem.

Don't worry, it isn't a problem. Happier people are more productive.

 

[Johnnypenso]

Don't worry, it isn't a problem. Happier people are more productive.

Not seeing the connection.

 

[ryzno]

I know, I know. I'm quoting you.
I get the direction of the meme but who is Jack?

 

[Imari]

I mean if I child is born with a penis, it is a male no matter what it feels like. It can undergo any operation in the world but in the end, its DNA will always be the one of a male individual. If scientists take its bone in 1000 years after its death, they will not care what it felt like and what operations it underwent. They will say "this was a male".

I feel like you're getting gender issues confused with homosexuality. They are not the same.

I know, I know. I'm quoting you.
I get the direction of the meme but who is Jack?

It's from Fight Club. I feel like you'd probably enjoy that movie if you haven't seen it already. It's a good watch.

 

[UKMikey]

It's from Fight Club. I feel like you'd probably enjoy that movie if you haven't seen it already. It's a good watch.

When I was younger Reader's Digest published a series of biological educational articles told from the point of view of the different organs of the body. I Am Jack's Liver, I Am Jack's Stomach etc. Palahniuk has the character in Fight Club discover some Digest copies and adapt the saying from those.

[EDIT] Reader's Digest used "Joe" in place of "Jack" but Palahniuk changed the name.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I mean if I child is born with a penis, it is a male no matter what it feels like.

Yes. That's the difference between sex and gender.

It can undergo any operation in the world but in the end, its DNA will always be the one of a male individual. If scientists take its bone in 1000 years after its death, they will not care what it felt like and what operations it underwent. They will say "this was a male".

Given that we're living now rather than "in 1000 years" that has very little bearing on today. It also excludes the fact that we do know from archaeology about individuals who lived as genders that differed from their biological sex.

 

[ryzno]

It's from Fight Club. I feel like you'd probably enjoy that movie if you haven't seen it already. It's a good watch.

When I was younger Reader's Digest published a series of biological educational articles told from the point of view of the different organs of the body. I Am Jack's Liver, I Am Jack's Stomach etc. Palahniuk has the character in Fight Club discover some Digest copies and adapt the saying from those.

My grandma had Reader's Digest. Never read them and I have watched the movie. Good movie but not one I've watched more than once or twice. I would've never gotten that, from that. Thanks y'all.

 

[Sander 001]

God forbid the school attempts to teach children not to be horrible to each other, or at least enforces some sort of behavioural discipline. You know, like the sort of discipline that is actually enforced in adult society that these children will one day have to enter and operate within. Much easier to ban any item that's too expensive...

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you logic from the fine brains that are supposedly teaching your children to think.

How do you discipline peer pressures?

 

[Imari]

How do you discipline peer pressures?

How do you discipline a child stabbing another child in the eye?

 

[Sander 001]

How do you discipline a child stabbing another child in the eye?

I know that my question doesn’t have an easy answer but to not even feign an attempt via answering a question with a question is pretty telling.

 

[TenEightyOne]

God forbid the school attempts to teach children not to be horrible to each other, or at least enforces some sort of behavioural discipline. You know, like the sort of discipline that is actually enforced in adult society that these children will one day have to enter and operate within. Much easier to ban any item that's too expensive...

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you logic from the fine brains that are supposedly teaching your children to think.

The issue goes a bit beyond just inter-child behaviour. Pressure to have high value clothing (or other) puts pressure on families that may not have the money to provide such accoutrements. There are often negative outcomes for families under that kind of pressure. That's one of the main reasons for school uniform in general.

 

[ryzno]

The issue goes a bit beyond just inter-child behaviour. Pressure to have high value clothing (or other) puts pressure on families that may not have the money to provide such accoutrements. There are often negative outcomes for families under that kind of pressure. That's one of the main reasons for school uniform in general.

Kids'll still hate on each other. They'll hate on the shoes even though they all have to be black shoes.
They'll hate on the fact the poor kid is wearing Walmart Dickies pants instead of real Dickies store pants.*
*There is a difference in quality and price.

 

[LeMansAid]

Give a man a fish........

Take away expensive clothes and a rich kid will appear less a knob for a day. Teach them to not place their sense of importance on shallow phenomena and a rich kid will be less a knob for a lifetime.

 

[Imari]

I know that my question doesn’t have an easy answer but to not even feign an attempt via answering a question with a question is pretty telling.

No, it's not. It's an attempt to demonstrate that your question misses the point. I hoped that you would see that the answer to one was the same as the answer to the other. I hoped that you would find "how do you discipline a child stabbing another child in the eye?" more intuitive than "how do you discipline peer pressure?"

What you're actually asking is "how do you discipline a child?" What you're disciplining the child for is irrelevant. If you have undesirable behaviour, you apply the same methods and techniques.

You make sure that the rules and consequences are clear.
You have a set of gradated and well defined punishments.
You apply these with consistency and without malice.
You apply levels of punishment that are appropriate for the violation.
Ideally, you also reward positive behaviour, even if it's only as little as explicitly commending it.

My previous answer was an attempt to "teach" you by letting you think for yourself. As that hasn't worked, this time I've gone for an explicit explanation. I like this less, as I feel you're likely not to understand a simple list like this as well as if you'd had to think through it for yourself. You may disagree with my methods of discipline, for example, which are not universal and are just what I have found to work best.

But for your question, the method doesn't even really matter. If you have a method of disciplining children for anything, you have a method that can be applied to peer pressure.

It should also be noted that adults can expect to be disciplined for certain types of anti-social behaviour, harassment and bullying. Teaching children that these boundaries exist and should be respected could be viewed as giving them a good foundation for entering the adult world. Instead of allowing an atmosphere in schools where extreme behaviour is tolerated, and expecting them to just switch that off when they enter the work force.

The issue goes a bit beyond just inter-child behaviour. Pressure to have high value clothing (or other) puts pressure on families that may not have the money to provide such accoutrements. There are often negative outcomes for families under that kind of pressure. That's one of the main reasons for school uniform in general.

Yeah, but I'm talking about things that we can actually control here. You can't do anything about some families being richer than others. School uniforms takes away one expression of wealth, but it really doesn't address the issue of kids bullying other kids over the wealth of their parents.

I find it preferable to address the core problematic behaviour rather than try and band aid it by regulating clothes, or hairstyles, or shoes, or pencil boxes. Rich people being visibly different to poor people is a real world adult thing. Teaching children how to deal with that appropriately seems like good life education.

I think that to many people schools have been reduced to a place to receive just academic education, times tables, literacy, etc. The reality is that this is a place where children spend a good proportion of their life, and is in many ways comparable to a workplace that they will experience as adults. Using that time in school to teach and prepare them for the life they are to lead as adults seems sensible to me, but I suspect that I'm a bit of an outlier.

 

[Turbotwin01]

Most teachers I have had always say "School is about study not socializing" yet most social situations that happen in school help set you up for afterwards, so I never understood that. Not to mention the people who I thought had bad attitudes in high school never kerbed them afterwards because no one ever stood up and told them they did.

 

[zzz_pt]

The issue goes a bit beyond just inter-child behaviour. Pressure to have high value clothing (or other) puts pressure on families that may not have the money to provide such accoutrements. There are often negative outcomes for families under that kind of pressure. That's one of the main reasons for school uniform in general.

I agree.

On the other hand, at least from my experience, private (rich) schools are the ones that tend to adopt uniforms or stricter clothing rules.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I agree.

On the other hand, at least from my experience, private (rich) schools are the ones that tend to adopt uniforms or stricter clothing rules.

That's definitely not the case in the UK.

 

[Sander 001]

No, it's not. It's an attempt to demonstrate that your question misses the point. I hoped that you would see that the answer to one was the same as the answer to the other. I hoped that you would find "how do you discipline a child stabbing another child in the eye?" more intuitive than "how do you discipline peer pressure?"

What you're actually asking is "how do you discipline a child?" What you're disciplining the child for is irrelevant. If you have undesirable behaviour, you apply the same methods and techniques.

You make sure that the rules and consequences are clear.
You have a set of gradated and well defined punishments.
You apply these with consistency and without malice.
You apply levels of punishment that are appropriate for the violation.
Ideally, you also reward positive behaviour, even if it's only as little as explicitly commending it.

My previous answer was an attempt to "teach" you by letting you think for yourself. As that hasn't worked, this time I've gone for an explicit explanation. I like this less, as I feel you're likely not to understand a simple list like this as well as if you'd had to think through it for yourself. You may disagree with my methods of discipline, for example, which are not universal and are just what I have found to work best.

But for your question, the method doesn't even really matter. If you have a method of disciplining children for anything, you have a method that can be applied to peer pressure.

It should also be noted that adults can expect to be disciplined for certain types of anti-social behaviour, harassment and bullying. Teaching children that these boundaries exist and should be respected could be viewed as giving them a good foundation for entering the adult world. Instead of allowing an atmosphere in schools where extreme behaviour is tolerated, and expecting them to just switch that off when they enter the work force.



Yeah, but I'm talking about things that we can actually control here. You can't do anything about some families being richer than others. School uniforms takes away one expression of wealth, but it really doesn't address the issue of kids bullying other kids over the wealth of their parents.

I find it preferable to address the core problematic behaviour rather than try and band aid it by regulating clothes, or hairstyles, or shoes, or pencil boxes. Rich people being visibly different to poor people is a real world adult thing. Teaching children how to deal with that appropriately seems like good life education.

I think that to many people schools have been reduced to a place to receive just academic education, times tables, literacy, etc. The reality is that this is a place where children spend a good proportion of their life, and is in many ways comparable to a workplace that they will experience as adults. Using that time in school to teach and prepare them for the life they are to lead as adults seems sensible to me, but I suspect that I'm a bit of an outlier.

Well you really contradict yourself in multiple places so this was a waste of time. You wanted me to “think through it for yourself” yet you admit you’re an outlier so it’s very unlikely anybody would reach your conclusions.

Your post makes two huge assumptions likely without even realizing it considering how you don’t even acknowledge them. You have these flash card answers and you think you have solved a problem which has been around since the beginning of civilization.

 

[Imari]

Well you really contradict yourself in multiple places so this was a waste of time. You wanted me to “think through it for yourself” yet you admit you’re an outlier so it’s very unlikely anybody would reach your conclusions.

That's not a contradiction. I'd rather you think it through for yourself because people should be able to think for themselves. My having opinions on how schools should be is not related, because that part of the post was not directed at you.

I don't assume that you'd reach the exact same conclusions for how discipline should be done as I, but that doesn't matter because you would find that whatever discipline method you find effective works equally for peer pressure.

Your post makes two huge assumptions likely without even realizing it considering how you don’t even acknowledge them. You have these flash card answers and you think you have solved a problem which has been around since the beginning of civilization.

Great. So point out these assumptions. If you can. Then describe how they're relevant and how they make what I'm saying incorrect.

I haven't solved anything, nor have I claimed to. On the other hand, the idea of discipline has been around in various forms since apparently slightly after the beginning of civilisation. I'm not claiming that I invented it, I'm just pointing out that it exists in whatever form you choose to apply it, and it can be used just as well against peer pressure as anything else.

Bonus round: Point out the contradictions, describe how they're relevant and how they make what I'm saying incorrect. If you're correct, I'll apologise and amend my points.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Yeah, but I'm talking about things that we can actually control here. You can't do anything about some families being richer than others. School uniforms takes away one expression of wealth, but it really doesn't address the issue of kids bullying other kids over the wealth of their parents.

I'm mostly in agreement with your recent replies... but we can do something about bringing those expressions of wealth into school. You're right that it doesn't do anything about how kids will react to one another's home lives but it takes the more obvious signs of distinction out of the school. Which is a start, if not a fix.

 

[Imari]

I'm mostly in agreement with your recent replies... but we can do something about bringing those expressions of wealth into school. You're right that it doesn't do anything about how kids will react to one another's home lives but it takes the more obvious signs of distinction out of the school. Which is a start, if not a fix.

But my point is that I'm not sure it's really a start to the goal that you should be aiming for; namely producing children that turn into well adjusted and capable adults. It's a fix that doesn't apply to the real adult world that we're supposedly attempting to prepare children for. In adult life, ostentatious shows of wealth are common. It's just something that those that aren't as wealthy have to deal with. Uniforms exist as branding for your employer, and even within strict business attire you will see distinctions between the haves and the have nots.

So is the idea to remove things that might be instigation for bullying? Or is it to teach children both how to deal sensibly with the obvious inequalities that they will see in the real world, and how not to use those to abuse others when they happen to be on the side where the grass is greener?

I'd say that bullying isn't the problem as much as it's a symptom, the problem is children not knowing or being taught proper social and behavioural ettiquette and not having it enforced to the extent that it becomes an unspoken norm. I see it as a perfect moment for children to be learning a valuable lesson about the real world, not something to be shied away from and hidden.

As an adult, it is not appropriate or accepted for me to bully a co-worker or acquaintance that is less wealthy than I. Depending on my employers and circle of friends, I could expect anything from mild to severe repercussions for doing so. I'm not expected to go out of my way to avoid appearing more wealthy than them, that's just a fact of life. I am expected not to be an arse about it.

If you want adults who aren't insufferable ***** simply because they happen to have a high paying job or wealthy parents, start when they're children. And that means not avoiding situations in which appropriate behaviour could be taught. If they never run into the situation as children, they'll be no better prepared as adults.

 

[baldgye]

Maybe I missed something on this page?
I was educated in a public school, I wasn't one of the most wealthy students in my year (to say the least). There where kids in my class who came from obscene wealth and those even less fortunate than me. But money wasn't ever a determining factor in bullying... it was far more nuanced than that...

Hell I played Rugby against kids who's parents flew them to school via their helicopter and wealth wasn't ever an issue for bullying... to be fair, the parents where the only ones really bothered about wealth...