Floida is investigating a teacher who showed a Disney movie with a gay character

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a parent I would be annoyed if a teacher showed this movie unless it were a rainy day during lunch or the last day of school or maybe even if there were a substitute. The teacher claims:

“Barbee said the movie focuses on humans' relationship to the environment, which was why she chose to show it to her class after a section on ecosystems, plants and animals.”

There are so many amazing Natgeo documentaries on Disney+ it’s ridiculous the teacher wasted time showing this movie. It is not based on a novel the students read either. She sounds like a lazy teacher. And not too bright if she works in Florida and thought no one would complain. If you go to common sense media there are a bunch of complaints from wacky parents.

+1. It's unbelievable what passes for "education" these days.

Whether or not people agree with religion, there are a lot of religious, conservative, or traditional people that don't want their kids to view materials that are counter to their values.

If you think that they are wrong and want their kids to view materials that promote lifestyles that are counter to their values, that is also an ideological position.

So rather than pit one ideological position against another, let's leave ideology out of the classroom and stop talking to elementary students about sex, full stop.

Viewing material that indicates gay people exist isn't talking about sex whatsoever you nutcase? Do you think kids with gay parents should be banned from ever mentioning their parents to other kids? Because you are implying that.

Sounds fascist.

I'm not remotely Implying that, you Marxist 1984 thought police Jr anti-sex leaguer. Get a life.

There is virtually nothing that could be shown that won't offend someone somewhere. So either we are lax overly overly strict. I err towards lax because overly strict means a cascading domino effect of fascism.

The movie was appropriate for the age group, bottom line.

BTW, I'm becoming convinced that fascism = Fnord. All reaction, no substance.

Oh.

Well here you go, Field of Dreams scene from over 30 years ago. Fascists then, fascists now. Or it was ok to use fascist then?

Ma'am, no one is going to watch your video and read your mind. Use your words.

Same sh*t different decade and people calling book (and movie) banners fascist isn't remotely new. Lazy argument to pretend it is.

I'm not calling it new. I'm calling it a fnord. Everything is now fascist-- without proof, without discussion, without any real application of rational thought. It's a statement of pure emotion now, meant to convey that something is not sanctioned by Big Brother. Can't say that kids shouldn't watch cartoons about sexual interests in school, thats fascist! We all know how much Hitler and the brownshirts couldn't stand Disney! No. I am not going to pretend this is a sensible interpretation of the facts. Lots of parents have lots of opinions about education and what their kids should be exposed to. And they aren't all fascists.

The parent who complained to the FL Dept of Ed is a facist. If they were upset their child watched the film, then complain to the school principal. Why demand an investigation over a freaking movie.

Put yourself in the shoes of a religious minority. Imagine you immigrated to this country from afar. And you want to integrate but pass on your religious values to your kid. And you think this movie makes it hard to justify your views to your kid bc it glamorizes and normalizes a lifestyles that you disagree with.

I will clarify that I am a secularist. But I have lived in a theocracy and I don't believe in using state power to coerce ideological views onto children.

Homosexuality isn't an ideological view. Therein lies the problem with your argument.

We view many sexual urges as something that may be natural, yet also must be suppressed for the sake of social good. We, as Americans, do not condone acting on any and all sexual urges, for ideological reasons. It is absolutely ideological that we have decided that it is in society's interest to make being gay permissible. And it is absolutely ideological that other cultures have not.

Many cultures view women as subordinate. Is it ideological that our society decided to give women equal rights? Should we ban anything that shows women having an opinion because it might violate someone's ideological POV? The point is, this is a slippery slope catering to extremes.

I'll play your silly game. Name a culture that believes women are nit allowed to have an opinion.

America up to 1920

It just tells me that you've never actually lived anywhere that challenged the modern American view of what it means for women to be empowered. Guess what, a lot of cultures think our treatment of women is abhorrent. It's not possible to truly understand other views if you never consider them. And maybe that's good for you, because it makes it easier to shut down parents with differing views.

Banning homosexuality from being depicted in any way, shape, or form including a PG rated Disney movie, in a public school, is shutting someone down. It's just a matter of which someone you side with.

That's just it. Teachers SHOULD be given boundaries about what is professionally acceptable. Teaching should not be an opportunity to explore your views, be heard, and be accepted by a captive bunch of 8 year olds. That's what a social life is for. It's totally okay to "shut down" lessons that don't adhere to expected norms.

The norm in our society now is that gay repationships are a normal part of humanity.

Interracial relationships also used to he outside the expected norms but they too are now accepted.

There was no “lesson” about gayness in this film. There was nothing to shut down.

If you are ao far outside the norms of our society that you object to your child seeing gay characters then perhaps you should isolate yourself in a like minded community like the Amish do. That’s your right. You don’t get to impose your religious views on others.

I agree with everything you've said here, yet it still leads me to the conclusion that showing a cartoon movie about a gay romance may be objectionable to many religious minorities, and the best way to proceed is by airing sexuality- neutral movies. If any movies are aired at all.

Please define "sexually neutral" movies please

A movie that does not feature a romantic relationship, or romantic attractions/interactions, as part of the storyline. There are stories that don't focus on sex or sexual relationships.

Please name a few of those movies. I must just be unfamiliar.

You only read/view children's movies that are romantic? Okay. That's weird.

Finding Nemo. Wizard of Oz. The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.

The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe! I thought you were against shoving religion down kids' throats!

It's been a while since I read it, but it was about mythical woodland creatures. Not Jesus Christ.

It’s very explicitly an allegory about the death and resurrection of Christ.

There is no mention of Jesus or religion.

Most books have the journey of the hero story arc. Not unique.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a parent I would be annoyed if a teacher showed this movie unless it were a rainy day during lunch or the last day of school or maybe even if there were a substitute. The teacher claims:

“Barbee said the movie focuses on humans' relationship to the environment, which was why she chose to show it to her class after a section on ecosystems, plants and animals.”

There are so many amazing Natgeo documentaries on Disney+ it’s ridiculous the teacher wasted time showing this movie. It is not based on a novel the students read either. She sounds like a lazy teacher. And not too bright if she works in Florida and thought no one would complain. If you go to common sense media there are a bunch of complaints from wacky parents.

+1. It's unbelievable what passes for "education" these days.

Whether or not people agree with religion, there are a lot of religious, conservative, or traditional people that don't want their kids to view materials that are counter to their values.

If you think that they are wrong and want their kids to view materials that promote lifestyles that are counter to their values, that is also an ideological position.

So rather than pit one ideological position against another, let's leave ideology out of the classroom and stop talking to elementary students about sex, full stop.

Viewing material that indicates gay people exist isn't talking about sex whatsoever you nutcase? Do you think kids with gay parents should be banned from ever mentioning their parents to other kids? Because you are implying that.

Sounds fascist.

I'm not remotely Implying that, you Marxist 1984 thought police Jr anti-sex leaguer. Get a life.

There is virtually nothing that could be shown that won't offend someone somewhere. So either we are lax overly overly strict. I err towards lax because overly strict means a cascading domino effect of fascism.

The movie was appropriate for the age group, bottom line.

BTW, I'm becoming convinced that fascism = Fnord. All reaction, no substance.

Oh.

Well here you go, Field of Dreams scene from over 30 years ago. Fascists then, fascists now. Or it was ok to use fascist then?

Ma'am, no one is going to watch your video and read your mind. Use your words.

Same sh*t different decade and people calling book (and movie) banners fascist isn't remotely new. Lazy argument to pretend it is.

I'm not calling it new. I'm calling it a fnord. Everything is now fascist-- without proof, without discussion, without any real application of rational thought. It's a statement of pure emotion now, meant to convey that something is not sanctioned by Big Brother. Can't say that kids shouldn't watch cartoons about sexual interests in school, thats fascist! We all know how much Hitler and the brownshirts couldn't stand Disney! No. I am not going to pretend this is a sensible interpretation of the facts. Lots of parents have lots of opinions about education and what their kids should be exposed to. And they aren't all fascists.

The parent who complained to the FL Dept of Ed is a facist. If they were upset their child watched the film, then complain to the school principal. Why demand an investigation over a freaking movie.

Put yourself in the shoes of a religious minority. Imagine you immigrated to this country from afar. And you want to integrate but pass on your religious values to your kid. And you think this movie makes it hard to justify your views to your kid bc it glamorizes and normalizes a lifestyles that you disagree with.

I will clarify that I am a secularist. But I have lived in a theocracy and I don't believe in using state power to coerce ideological views onto children.

Homosexuality isn't an ideological view. Therein lies the problem with your argument.

We view many sexual urges as something that may be natural, yet also must be suppressed for the sake of social good. We, as Americans, do not condone acting on any and all sexual urges, for ideological reasons. It is absolutely ideological that we have decided that it is in society's interest to make being gay permissible. And it is absolutely ideological that other cultures have not.

Many cultures view women as subordinate. Is it ideological that our society decided to give women equal rights? Should we ban anything that shows women having an opinion because it might violate someone's ideological POV? The point is, this is a slippery slope catering to extremes.

I'll play your silly game. Name a culture that believes women are nit allowed to have an opinion.

America up to 1920

It just tells me that you've never actually lived anywhere that challenged the modern American view of what it means for women to be empowered. Guess what, a lot of cultures think our treatment of women is abhorrent. It's not possible to truly understand other views if you never consider them. And maybe that's good for you, because it makes it easier to shut down parents with differing views.

Banning homosexuality from being depicted in any way, shape, or form including a PG rated Disney movie, in a public school, is shutting someone down. It's just a matter of which someone you side with.

That's just it. Teachers SHOULD be given boundaries about what is professionally acceptable. Teaching should not be an opportunity to explore your views, be heard, and be accepted by a captive bunch of 8 year olds. That's what a social life is for. It's totally okay to "shut down" lessons that don't adhere to expected norms.

The norm in our society now is that gay repationships are a normal part of humanity.

Interracial relationships also used to he outside the expected norms but they too are now accepted.

There was no “lesson” about gayness in this film. There was nothing to shut down.

If you are ao far outside the norms of our society that you object to your child seeing gay characters then perhaps you should isolate yourself in a like minded community like the Amish do. That’s your right. You don’t get to impose your religious views on others.

I agree with everything you've said here, yet it still leads me to the conclusion that showing a cartoon movie about a gay romance may be objectionable to many religious minorities, and the best way to proceed is by airing sexuality- neutral movies. If any movies are aired at all.

Please define "sexually neutral" movies please

A movie that does not feature a romantic relationship, or romantic attractions/interactions, as part of the storyline. There are stories that don't focus on sex or sexual relationships.

Please name a few of those movies. I must just be unfamiliar.

You only read/view children's movies that are romantic? Okay. That's weird.

Finding Nemo. Wizard of Oz. The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.

The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe! I thought you were against shoving religion down kids' throats!

It's been a while since I read it, but it was about mythical woodland creatures. Not Jesus Christ.

It’s very explicitly an allegory about the death and resurrection of Christ.

There is no mention of Jesus or religion.

Most books have the journey of the hero story arc. Not unique.

Aslan is killed as a sacrifice to save the kids. And then he is resurrected, defeats the witch, and crowns the kids kings and queens of narnia. My then 9 year old who is only vaguely familiar with the New Testament picked up on this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a parent I would be annoyed if a teacher showed this movie unless it were a rainy day during lunch or the last day of school or maybe even if there were a substitute. The teacher claims:

“Barbee said the movie focuses on humans' relationship to the environment, which was why she chose to show it to her class after a section on ecosystems, plants and animals.”

There are so many amazing Natgeo documentaries on Disney+ it’s ridiculous the teacher wasted time showing this movie. It is not based on a novel the students read either. She sounds like a lazy teacher. And not too bright if she works in Florida and thought no one would complain. If you go to common sense media there are a bunch of complaints from wacky parents.

+1. It's unbelievable what passes for "education" these days.

Whether or not people agree with religion, there are a lot of religious, conservative, or traditional people that don't want their kids to view materials that are counter to their values.

If you think that they are wrong and want their kids to view materials that promote lifestyles that are counter to their values, that is also an ideological position.

So rather than pit one ideological position against another, let's leave ideology out of the classroom and stop talking to elementary students about sex, full stop.

Viewing material that indicates gay people exist isn't talking about sex whatsoever you nutcase? Do you think kids with gay parents should be banned from ever mentioning their parents to other kids? Because you are implying that.

Sounds fascist.

I'm not remotely Implying that, you Marxist 1984 thought police Jr anti-sex leaguer. Get a life.

There is virtually nothing that could be shown that won't offend someone somewhere. So either we are lax overly overly strict. I err towards lax because overly strict means a cascading domino effect of fascism.

The movie was appropriate for the age group, bottom line.

BTW, I'm becoming convinced that fascism = Fnord. All reaction, no substance.

Oh.

Well here you go, Field of Dreams scene from over 30 years ago. Fascists then, fascists now. Or it was ok to use fascist then?

Ma'am, no one is going to watch your video and read your mind. Use your words.

Same sh*t different decade and people calling book (and movie) banners fascist isn't remotely new. Lazy argument to pretend it is.

I'm not calling it new. I'm calling it a fnord. Everything is now fascist-- without proof, without discussion, without any real application of rational thought. It's a statement of pure emotion now, meant to convey that something is not sanctioned by Big Brother. Can't say that kids shouldn't watch cartoons about sexual interests in school, thats fascist! We all know how much Hitler and the brownshirts couldn't stand Disney! No. I am not going to pretend this is a sensible interpretation of the facts. Lots of parents have lots of opinions about education and what their kids should be exposed to. And they aren't all fascists.

The parent who complained to the FL Dept of Ed is a facist. If they were upset their child watched the film, then complain to the school principal. Why demand an investigation over a freaking movie.

Put yourself in the shoes of a religious minority. Imagine you immigrated to this country from afar. And you want to integrate but pass on your religious values to your kid. And you think this movie makes it hard to justify your views to your kid bc it glamorizes and normalizes a lifestyles that you disagree with.

I will clarify that I am a secularist. But I have lived in a theocracy and I don't believe in using state power to coerce ideological views onto children.

Homosexuality isn't an ideological view. Therein lies the problem with your argument.

We view many sexual urges as something that may be natural, yet also must be suppressed for the sake of social good. We, as Americans, do not condone acting on any and all sexual urges, for ideological reasons. It is absolutely ideological that we have decided that it is in society's interest to make being gay permissible. And it is absolutely ideological that other cultures have not.

Many cultures view women as subordinate. Is it ideological that our society decided to give women equal rights? Should we ban anything that shows women having an opinion because it might violate someone's ideological POV? The point is, this is a slippery slope catering to extremes.

I'll play your silly game. Name a culture that believes women are nit allowed to have an opinion.

America up to 1920

It just tells me that you've never actually lived anywhere that challenged the modern American view of what it means for women to be empowered. Guess what, a lot of cultures think our treatment of women is abhorrent. It's not possible to truly understand other views if you never consider them. And maybe that's good for you, because it makes it easier to shut down parents with differing views.

Banning homosexuality from being depicted in any way, shape, or form including a PG rated Disney movie, in a public school, is shutting someone down. It's just a matter of which someone you side with.

That's just it. Teachers SHOULD be given boundaries about what is professionally acceptable. Teaching should not be an opportunity to explore your views, be heard, and be accepted by a captive bunch of 8 year olds. That's what a social life is for. It's totally okay to "shut down" lessons that don't adhere to expected norms.

The norm in our society now is that gay repationships are a normal part of humanity.

Interracial relationships also used to he outside the expected norms but they too are now accepted.

There was no “lesson” about gayness in this film. There was nothing to shut down.

If you are ao far outside the norms of our society that you object to your child seeing gay characters then perhaps you should isolate yourself in a like minded community like the Amish do. That’s your right. You don’t get to impose your religious views on others.

I agree with everything you've said here, yet it still leads me to the conclusion that showing a cartoon movie about a gay romance may be objectionable to many religious minorities, and the best way to proceed is by airing sexuality- neutral movies. If any movies are aired at all.

Please define "sexually neutral" movies please

A movie that does not feature a romantic relationship, or romantic attractions/interactions, as part of the storyline. There are stories that don't focus on sex or sexual relationships.

Please name a few of those movies. I must just be unfamiliar.

You only read/view children's movies that are romantic? Okay. That's weird.

Finding Nemo. Wizard of Oz. The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.

The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe! I thought you were against shoving religion down kids' throats!

It's been a while since I read it, but it was about mythical woodland creatures. Not Jesus Christ.

It’s very explicitly an allegory about the death and resurrection of Christ.

There is no mention of Jesus or religion.

Most books have the journey of the hero story arc. Not unique.

Aslan is killed as a sacrifice to save the kids. And then he is resurrected, defeats the witch, and crowns the kids kings and queens of narnia. My then 9 year old who is only vaguely familiar with the New Testament picked up on this.

Okay, it's still not a religious text even if there are parallels. No kid will pray to Aslan after reading it. Most likely....

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a parent I would be annoyed if a teacher showed this movie unless it were a rainy day during lunch or the last day of school or maybe even if there were a substitute. The teacher claims:

“Barbee said the movie focuses on humans' relationship to the environment, which was why she chose to show it to her class after a section on ecosystems, plants and animals.”

There are so many amazing Natgeo documentaries on Disney+ it’s ridiculous the teacher wasted time showing this movie. It is not based on a novel the students read either. She sounds like a lazy teacher. And not too bright if she works in Florida and thought no one would complain. If you go to common sense media there are a bunch of complaints from wacky parents.

+1. It's unbelievable what passes for "education" these days.

Whether or not people agree with religion, there are a lot of religious, conservative, or traditional people that don't want their kids to view materials that are counter to their values.

If you think that they are wrong and want their kids to view materials that promote lifestyles that are counter to their values, that is also an ideological position.

So rather than pit one ideological position against another, let's leave ideology out of the classroom and stop talking to elementary students about sex, full stop.

Viewing material that indicates gay people exist isn't talking about sex whatsoever you nutcase? Do you think kids with gay parents should be banned from ever mentioning their parents to other kids? Because you are implying that.

Sounds fascist.

I'm not remotely Implying that, you Marxist 1984 thought police Jr anti-sex leaguer. Get a life.

There is virtually nothing that could be shown that won't offend someone somewhere. So either we are lax overly overly strict. I err towards lax because overly strict means a cascading domino effect of fascism.

The movie was appropriate for the age group, bottom line.

BTW, I'm becoming convinced that fascism = Fnord. All reaction, no substance.

Oh.

Well here you go, Field of Dreams scene from over 30 years ago. Fascists then, fascists now. Or it was ok to use fascist then?

Ma'am, no one is going to watch your video and read your mind. Use your words.

Same sh*t different decade and people calling book (and movie) banners fascist isn't remotely new. Lazy argument to pretend it is.

I'm not calling it new. I'm calling it a fnord. Everything is now fascist-- without proof, without discussion, without any real application of rational thought. It's a statement of pure emotion now, meant to convey that something is not sanctioned by Big Brother. Can't say that kids shouldn't watch cartoons about sexual interests in school, thats fascist! We all know how much Hitler and the brownshirts couldn't stand Disney! No. I am not going to pretend this is a sensible interpretation of the facts. Lots of parents have lots of opinions about education and what their kids should be exposed to. And they aren't all fascists.

The parent who complained to the FL Dept of Ed is a facist. If they were upset their child watched the film, then complain to the school principal. Why demand an investigation over a freaking movie.

Put yourself in the shoes of a religious minority. Imagine you immigrated to this country from afar. And you want to integrate but pass on your religious values to your kid. And you think this movie makes it hard to justify your views to your kid bc it glamorizes and normalizes a lifestyles that you disagree with.

I will clarify that I am a secularist. But I have lived in a theocracy and I don't believe in using state power to coerce ideological views onto children.

Homosexuality isn't an ideological view. Therein lies the problem with your argument.

We view many sexual urges as something that may be natural, yet also must be suppressed for the sake of social good. We, as Americans, do not condone acting on any and all sexual urges, for ideological reasons. It is absolutely ideological that we have decided that it is in society's interest to make being gay permissible. And it is absolutely ideological that other cultures have not.

Many cultures view women as subordinate. Is it ideological that our society decided to give women equal rights? Should we ban anything that shows women having an opinion because it might violate someone's ideological POV? The point is, this is a slippery slope catering to extremes.

I'll play your silly game. Name a culture that believes women are nit allowed to have an opinion.

America up to 1920

It just tells me that you've never actually lived anywhere that challenged the modern American view of what it means for women to be empowered. Guess what, a lot of cultures think our treatment of women is abhorrent. It's not possible to truly understand other views if you never consider them. And maybe that's good for you, because it makes it easier to shut down parents with differing views.

Banning homosexuality from being depicted in any way, shape, or form including a PG rated Disney movie, in a public school, is shutting someone down. It's just a matter of which someone you side with.

That's just it. Teachers SHOULD be given boundaries about what is professionally acceptable. Teaching should not be an opportunity to explore your views, be heard, and be accepted by a captive bunch of 8 year olds. That's what a social life is for. It's totally okay to "shut down" lessons that don't adhere to expected norms.

The norm in our society now is that gay repationships are a normal part of humanity.

Interracial relationships also used to he outside the expected norms but they too are now accepted.

There was no “lesson” about gayness in this film. There was nothing to shut down.

If you are ao far outside the norms of our society that you object to your child seeing gay characters then perhaps you should isolate yourself in a like minded community like the Amish do. That’s your right. You don’t get to impose your religious views on others.

I agree with everything you've said here, yet it still leads me to the conclusion that showing a cartoon movie about a gay romance may be objectionable to many religious minorities, and the best way to proceed is by airing sexuality- neutral movies. If any movies are aired at all.

Please define "sexually neutral" movies please

A movie that does not feature a romantic relationship, or romantic attractions/interactions, as part of the storyline. There are stories that don't focus on sex or sexual relationships.

Please name a few of those movies. I must just be unfamiliar.

You only read/view children's movies that are romantic? Okay. That's weird.

Finding Nemo. Wizard of Oz. The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.

The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe! I thought you were against shoving religion down kids' throats!

It's been a while since I read it, but it was about mythical woodland creatures. Not Jesus Christ.

It’s very explicitly an allegory about the death and resurrection of Christ.

There is no mention of Jesus or religion.

Most books have the journey of the hero story arc. Not unique.

Aslan is killed as a sacrifice to save the kids. And then he is resurrected, defeats the witch, and crowns the kids kings and queens of narnia. My then 9 year old who is only vaguely familiar with the New Testament picked up on this.

Okay, it's still not a religious text even if there are parallels. No kid will pray to Aslan after reading it. Most likely....

oh for gd's sake!

you are showing the absolute stupidity of this idiotic florida rule. kids are capable of watching, reading, and processing all kinds of stories - and some will pick up on allegories, some will just like a story about a secret kingdom and adventure, some kids will understand that if a movie shows parents and a child that the child must have been produced in some way involving sex (or science, i guess!) and others will just notice the story. but this idea that you can show parents - same sex, opposite sex, whatever - living together in a family environment and that's fine, but as soon as they touch hands or exchange an affectionate look suddenly it's BANNED - it's RIDICULOUS. And the BOE coming to interview the Strange World teacher's students - what in the fk do they think they are going to learn?

Florida has a HORRENDOUS teacher shortage. Does this Nazi sht help with that? Does it?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a parent I would be annoyed if a teacher showed this movie unless it were a rainy day during lunch or the last day of school or maybe even if there were a substitute. The teacher claims:

“Barbee said the movie focuses on humans' relationship to the environment, which was why she chose to show it to her class after a section on ecosystems, plants and animals.”

There are so many amazing Natgeo documentaries on Disney+ it’s ridiculous the teacher wasted time showing this movie. It is not based on a novel the students read either. She sounds like a lazy teacher. And not too bright if she works in Florida and thought no one would complain. If you go to common sense media there are a bunch of complaints from wacky parents.

+1. It's unbelievable what passes for "education" these days.

Whether or not people agree with religion, there are a lot of religious, conservative, or traditional people that don't want their kids to view materials that are counter to their values.

If you think that they are wrong and want their kids to view materials that promote lifestyles that are counter to their values, that is also an ideological position.

So rather than pit one ideological position against another, let's leave ideology out of the classroom and stop talking to elementary students about sex, full stop.

Viewing material that indicates gay people exist isn't talking about sex whatsoever you nutcase? Do you think kids with gay parents should be banned from ever mentioning their parents to other kids? Because you are implying that.

Sounds fascist.

I'm not remotely Implying that, you Marxist 1984 thought police Jr anti-sex leaguer. Get a life.

There is virtually nothing that could be shown that won't offend someone somewhere. So either we are lax overly overly strict. I err towards lax because overly strict means a cascading domino effect of fascism.

The movie was appropriate for the age group, bottom line.

BTW, I'm becoming convinced that fascism = Fnord. All reaction, no substance.

Oh.

Well here you go, Field of Dreams scene from over 30 years ago. Fascists then, fascists now. Or it was ok to use fascist then?

Ma'am, no one is going to watch your video and read your mind. Use your words.

Same sh*t different decade and people calling book (and movie) banners fascist isn't remotely new. Lazy argument to pretend it is.

I'm not calling it new. I'm calling it a fnord. Everything is now fascist-- without proof, without discussion, without any real application of rational thought. It's a statement of pure emotion now, meant to convey that something is not sanctioned by Big Brother. Can't say that kids shouldn't watch cartoons about sexual interests in school, thats fascist! We all know how much Hitler and the brownshirts couldn't stand Disney! No. I am not going to pretend this is a sensible interpretation of the facts. Lots of parents have lots of opinions about education and what their kids should be exposed to. And they aren't all fascists.

The parent who complained to the FL Dept of Ed is a facist. If they were upset their child watched the film, then complain to the school principal. Why demand an investigation over a freaking movie.

Put yourself in the shoes of a religious minority. Imagine you immigrated to this country from afar. And you want to integrate but pass on your religious values to your kid. And you think this movie makes it hard to justify your views to your kid bc it glamorizes and normalizes a lifestyles that you disagree with.

I will clarify that I am a secularist. But I have lived in a theocracy and I don't believe in using state power to coerce ideological views onto children.

Homosexuality isn't an ideological view. Therein lies the problem with your argument.

We view many sexual urges as something that may be natural, yet also must be suppressed for the sake of social good. We, as Americans, do not condone acting on any and all sexual urges, for ideological reasons. It is absolutely ideological that we have decided that it is in society's interest to make being gay permissible. And it is absolutely ideological that other cultures have not.

Many cultures view women as subordinate. Is it ideological that our society decided to give women equal rights? Should we ban anything that shows women having an opinion because it might violate someone's ideological POV? The point is, this is a slippery slope catering to extremes.

I'll play your silly game. Name a culture that believes women are nit allowed to have an opinion.

America up to 1920

It just tells me that you've never actually lived anywhere that challenged the modern American view of what it means for women to be empowered. Guess what, a lot of cultures think our treatment of women is abhorrent. It's not possible to truly understand other views if you never consider them. And maybe that's good for you, because it makes it easier to shut down parents with differing views.

Banning homosexuality from being depicted in any way, shape, or form including a PG rated Disney movie, in a public school, is shutting someone down. It's just a matter of which someone you side with.

That's just it. Teachers SHOULD be given boundaries about what is professionally acceptable. Teaching should not be an opportunity to explore your views, be heard, and be accepted by a captive bunch of 8 year olds. That's what a social life is for. It's totally okay to "shut down" lessons that don't adhere to expected norms.

The norm in our society now is that gay repationships are a normal part of humanity.

Interracial relationships also used to he outside the expected norms but they too are now accepted.

There was no “lesson” about gayness in this film. There was nothing to shut down.

If you are ao far outside the norms of our society that you object to your child seeing gay characters then perhaps you should isolate yourself in a like minded community like the Amish do. That’s your right. You don’t get to impose your religious views on others.

I agree with everything you've said here, yet it still leads me to the conclusion that showing a cartoon movie about a gay romance may be objectionable to many religious minorities, and the best way to proceed is by airing sexuality- neutral movies. If any movies are aired at all.

Please define "sexually neutral" movies please

A movie that does not feature a romantic relationship, or romantic attractions/interactions, as part of the storyline. There are stories that don't focus on sex or sexual relationships.

Please name a few of those movies. I must just be unfamiliar.

You only read/view children's movies that are romantic? Okay. That's weird.

Finding Nemo. Wizard of Oz. The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.

The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe! I thought you were against shoving religion down kids' throats!

It's been a while since I read it, but it was about mythical woodland creatures. Not Jesus Christ.

It’s very explicitly an allegory about the death and resurrection of Christ.

There is no mention of Jesus or religion.

Most books have the journey of the hero story arc. Not unique.

Aslan is killed as a sacrifice to save the kids. And then he is resurrected, defeats the witch, and crowns the kids kings and queens of narnia. My then 9 year old who is only vaguely familiar with the New Testament picked up on this.

Okay, it's still not a religious text even if there are parallels. No kid will pray to Aslan after reading it. Most likely....

And no kid will turn gay because they saw a gay couple in a movie.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a parent I would be annoyed if a teacher showed this movie unless it were a rainy day during lunch or the last day of school or maybe even if there were a substitute. The teacher claims:

“Barbee said the movie focuses on humans' relationship to the environment, which was why she chose to show it to her class after a section on ecosystems, plants and animals.”

There are so many amazing Natgeo documentaries on Disney+ it’s ridiculous the teacher wasted time showing this movie. It is not based on a novel the students read either. She sounds like a lazy teacher. And not too bright if she works in Florida and thought no one would complain. If you go to common sense media there are a bunch of complaints from wacky parents.

+1. It's unbelievable what passes for "education" these days.

Whether or not people agree with religion, there are a lot of religious, conservative, or traditional people that don't want their kids to view materials that are counter to their values.

If you think that they are wrong and want their kids to view materials that promote lifestyles that are counter to their values, that is also an ideological position.

So rather than pit one ideological position against another, let's leave ideology out of the classroom and stop talking to elementary students about sex, full stop.

Viewing material that indicates gay people exist isn't talking about sex whatsoever you nutcase? Do you think kids with gay parents should be banned from ever mentioning their parents to other kids? Because you are implying that.

Sounds fascist.

I'm not remotely Implying that, you Marxist 1984 thought police Jr anti-sex leaguer. Get a life.

There is virtually nothing that could be shown that won't offend someone somewhere. So either we are lax overly overly strict. I err towards lax because overly strict means a cascading domino effect of fascism.

The movie was appropriate for the age group, bottom line.

BTW, I'm becoming convinced that fascism = Fnord. All reaction, no substance.

Oh.

Well here you go, Field of Dreams scene from over 30 years ago. Fascists then, fascists now. Or it was ok to use fascist then?

Ma'am, no one is going to watch your video and read your mind. Use your words.

Same sh*t different decade and people calling book (and movie) banners fascist isn't remotely new. Lazy argument to pretend it is.

I'm not calling it new. I'm calling it a fnord. Everything is now fascist-- without proof, without discussion, without any real application of rational thought. It's a statement of pure emotion now, meant to convey that something is not sanctioned by Big Brother. Can't say that kids shouldn't watch cartoons about sexual interests in school, thats fascist! We all know how much Hitler and the brownshirts couldn't stand Disney! No. I am not going to pretend this is a sensible interpretation of the facts. Lots of parents have lots of opinions about education and what their kids should be exposed to. And they aren't all fascists.

The parent who complained to the FL Dept of Ed is a facist. If they were upset their child watched the film, then complain to the school principal. Why demand an investigation over a freaking movie.

Put yourself in the shoes of a religious minority. Imagine you immigrated to this country from afar. And you want to integrate but pass on your religious values to your kid. And you think this movie makes it hard to justify your views to your kid bc it glamorizes and normalizes a lifestyles that you disagree with.

I will clarify that I am a secularist. But I have lived in a theocracy and I don't believe in using state power to coerce ideological views onto children.

Homosexuality isn't an ideological view. Therein lies the problem with your argument.

We view many sexual urges as something that may be natural, yet also must be suppressed for the sake of social good. We, as Americans, do not condone acting on any and all sexual urges, for ideological reasons. It is absolutely ideological that we have decided that it is in society's interest to make being gay permissible. And it is absolutely ideological that other cultures have not.

To what extent do we cater to fringe minorities at the expense of progress? Should we not show films with women working or being educated because that goes against certain ideological or religious points of view? How far down this slippery slope do we go?

A couple things. Traditionalists are not a fringe. They make up about half of our culture. And they make up an even larger portion of the migrants that are coming to the US in increasing numbers. Progressive views tend to exist largely among white, wealthy, educated people. While some progressives deviate from this stereotypes, they are not the norm. So as our culture becomes less and less white/wealthy, progressivism will wane even more.

Second. There isn't any major religion that is opposed to women working or being educated. Some religions emphasize gender roles, but there isn't a major religion that bans women working or being educated. You can find examples of fringe groups-- the Taliban, which is a government rather than a religion-- but no mainstream religion holds these views.

So. I would say you are intentionally pretending that sexual Traditionalists, who are mainstream, are the same thing as the Taliban, which are a fringe group, in order to claim that white, wealthy Americans should be able to make all decisions about education in America without any push back from minority groups.

The majority of Americans approve of gay marriage being legal. Whether or not they are “traditionalists.” I like traditions myself. Especially family traditions involving holidays. I also believe love is love and also think gay men make the best neighbors. (They really do.)

First, there is a difference between tolerance and celebration. Most people have no objection to gay marriage. That's tolerance. Other people actively want to normalize being gay and ensure that being gay is seen as a desirable state. That's celebration. This is why most people approve of gay marriage and yet the movie Bros was a box office bomb. Moreover, religious parents have also sought to ban the classic Romeo and Juliet for its "vulgar" depictions of romance, so its hard to make the case that they are against it simply because it is gay. It appears more accurate that the issue is sex of any type.

And meanwhile, Western Civ courses were removed from many colleges after Jesse Jackson famously led students at Stanford on a march chanting "hey, ho, western culture's got to go." Teaching Western Civ, the humanities course, was seen as a celebration of white males. (Citation below)
If we can eliminate history/humanities courses because acknowledgement is celebration, then the logic has to flow both ways. https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2020/02/19/how-revision-western-civ-curriculum-resulted-no-curriculum-all-opinion If merely

Presenting a totally sex neutral environment is optimal. I think there's a long history of liberals and conservatives both viewing educational instruction as state endorsement, so we are going to have to save the values-laden courses for private schools. As someone notes, if you want a values-based education, go isolate yourself in a community that shares your values. This is true for liberals as well. If you see gay cartoons as essential for the proper education of children, surely there is a private school or a local wine mom who will do that for you.

There's no need to "normalize" being gay because it ALREADY IS NORMAL to be gay. It's a normal part of the human condition. Some people are gay. Some people are left-handed. Some people are red-headed. Some people are disabled. Not the majority of people, but so what? Get over it.

"Sex neutral" means not talking about any kind of romance, hetero or otherwise. Good luck with that. Because love is also a part of the human condition.

p.s. what's a "gay" cartoon anyway?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a parent I would be annoyed if a teacher showed this movie unless it were a rainy day during lunch or the last day of school or maybe even if there were a substitute. The teacher claims:

“Barbee said the movie focuses on humans' relationship to the environment, which was why she chose to show it to her class after a section on ecosystems, plants and animals.”

There are so many amazing Natgeo documentaries on Disney+ it’s ridiculous the teacher wasted time showing this movie. It is not based on a novel the students read either. She sounds like a lazy teacher. And not too bright if she works in Florida and thought no one would complain. If you go to common sense media there are a bunch of complaints from wacky parents.

+1. It's unbelievable what passes for "education" these days.

Whether or not people agree with religion, there are a lot of religious, conservative, or traditional people that don't want their kids to view materials that are counter to their values.

If you think that they are wrong and want their kids to view materials that promote lifestyles that are counter to their values, that is also an ideological position.

So rather than pit one ideological position against another, let's leave ideology out of the classroom and stop talking to elementary students about sex, full stop.

Viewing material that indicates gay people exist isn't talking about sex whatsoever you nutcase? Do you think kids with gay parents should be banned from ever mentioning their parents to other kids? Because you are implying that.

Sounds fascist.

I'm not remotely Implying that, you Marxist 1984 thought police Jr anti-sex leaguer. Get a life.

There is virtually nothing that could be shown that won't offend someone somewhere. So either we are lax overly overly strict. I err towards lax because overly strict means a cascading domino effect of fascism.

The movie was appropriate for the age group, bottom line.

BTW, I'm becoming convinced that fascism = Fnord. All reaction, no substance.

Oh.

Well here you go, Field of Dreams scene from over 30 years ago. Fascists then, fascists now. Or it was ok to use fascist then?

Ma'am, no one is going to watch your video and read your mind. Use your words.

Same sh*t different decade and people calling book (and movie) banners fascist isn't remotely new. Lazy argument to pretend it is.

I'm not calling it new. I'm calling it a fnord. Everything is now fascist-- without proof, without discussion, without any real application of rational thought. It's a statement of pure emotion now, meant to convey that something is not sanctioned by Big Brother. Can't say that kids shouldn't watch cartoons about sexual interests in school, thats fascist! We all know how much Hitler and the brownshirts couldn't stand Disney! No. I am not going to pretend this is a sensible interpretation of the facts. Lots of parents have lots of opinions about education and what their kids should be exposed to. And they aren't all fascists.

The parent who complained to the FL Dept of Ed is a facist. If they were upset their child watched the film, then complain to the school principal. Why demand an investigation over a freaking movie.

Put yourself in the shoes of a religious minority. Imagine you immigrated to this country from afar. And you want to integrate but pass on your religious values to your kid. And you think this movie makes it hard to justify your views to your kid bc it glamorizes and normalizes a lifestyles that you disagree with.

I will clarify that I am a secularist. But I have lived in a theocracy and I don't believe in using state power to coerce ideological views onto children.

Homosexuality isn't an ideological view. Therein lies the problem with your argument.

We view many sexual urges as something that may be natural, yet also must be suppressed for the sake of social good. We, as Americans, do not condone acting on any and all sexual urges, for ideological reasons. It is absolutely ideological that we have decided that it is in society's interest to make being gay permissible. And it is absolutely ideological that other cultures have not.

Many cultures view women as subordinate. Is it ideological that our society decided to give women equal rights? Should we ban anything that shows women having an opinion because it might violate someone's ideological POV? The point is, this is a slippery slope catering to extremes.

I'll play your silly game. Name a culture that believes women are nit allowed to have an opinion.

America up to 1920

It just tells me that you've never actually lived anywhere that challenged the modern American view of what it means for women to be empowered. Guess what, a lot of cultures think our treatment of women is abhorrent. It's not possible to truly understand other views if you never consider them. And maybe that's good for you, because it makes it easier to shut down parents with differing views.

Banning homosexuality from being depicted in any way, shape, or form including a PG rated Disney movie, in a public school, is shutting someone down. It's just a matter of which someone you side with.

That's just it. Teachers SHOULD be given boundaries about what is professionally acceptable. Teaching should not be an opportunity to explore your views, be heard, and be accepted by a captive bunch of 8 year olds. That's what a social life is for. It's totally okay to "shut down" lessons that don't adhere to expected norms.

The norm in our society now is that gay repationships are a normal part of humanity.

Interracial relationships also used to he outside the expected norms but they too are now accepted.

There was no “lesson” about gayness in this film. There was nothing to shut down.

If you are ao far outside the norms of our society that you object to your child seeing gay characters then perhaps you should isolate yourself in a like minded community like the Amish do. That’s your right. You don’t get to impose your religious views on others.

I agree with everything you've said here, yet it still leads me to the conclusion that showing a cartoon movie about a gay romance may be objectionable to many religious minorities, and the best way to proceed is by airing sexuality- neutral movies. If any movies are aired at all.

Please define "sexually neutral" movies please

A movie that does not feature a romantic relationship, or romantic attractions/interactions, as part of the storyline. There are stories that don't focus on sex or sexual relationships.

Please name a few of those movies. I must just be unfamiliar.

You only read/view children's movies that are romantic? Okay. That's weird.

Finding Nemo. Wizard of Oz. The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.

The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe! I thought you were against shoving religion down kids' throats!

It's been a while since I read it, but it was about mythical woodland creatures. Not Jesus Christ.

It’s very explicitly an allegory about the death and resurrection of Christ.

There is no mention of Jesus or religion.

Most books have the journey of the hero story arc. Not unique.

Aslan is killed as a sacrifice to save the kids. And then he is resurrected, defeats the witch, and crowns the kids kings and queens of narnia. My then 9 year old who is only vaguely familiar with the New Testament picked up on this.

Well as an atheist, I don't want my kid shown this movie as it encapsulates an ideological view I disagree with. I'm sorry you disagree ideologically from me. Clearly the only solution is for me to go to my local government and have any teacher disciplined for showing the Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a parent I would be annoyed if a teacher showed this movie unless it were a rainy day during lunch or the last day of school or maybe even if there were a substitute. The teacher claims:

“Barbee said the movie focuses on humans' relationship to the environment, which was why she chose to show it to her class after a section on ecosystems, plants and animals.”

There are so many amazing Natgeo documentaries on Disney+ it’s ridiculous the teacher wasted time showing this movie. It is not based on a novel the students read either. She sounds like a lazy teacher. And not too bright if she works in Florida and thought no one would complain. If you go to common sense media there are a bunch of complaints from wacky parents.

+1. It's unbelievable what passes for "education" these days.

Whether or not people agree with religion, there are a lot of religious, conservative, or traditional people that don't want their kids to view materials that are counter to their values.

If you think that they are wrong and want their kids to view materials that promote lifestyles that are counter to their values, that is also an ideological position.

So rather than pit one ideological position against another, let's leave ideology out of the classroom and stop talking to elementary students about sex, full stop.

Viewing material that indicates gay people exist isn't talking about sex whatsoever you nutcase? Do you think kids with gay parents should be banned from ever mentioning their parents to other kids? Because you are implying that.

Sounds fascist.

I'm not remotely Implying that, you Marxist 1984 thought police Jr anti-sex leaguer. Get a life.

There is virtually nothing that could be shown that won't offend someone somewhere. So either we are lax overly overly strict. I err towards lax because overly strict means a cascading domino effect of fascism.

The movie was appropriate for the age group, bottom line.

BTW, I'm becoming convinced that fascism = Fnord. All reaction, no substance.

Oh.

Well here you go, Field of Dreams scene from over 30 years ago. Fascists then, fascists now. Or it was ok to use fascist then?

Ma'am, no one is going to watch your video and read your mind. Use your words.

Same sh*t different decade and people calling book (and movie) banners fascist isn't remotely new. Lazy argument to pretend it is.

I'm not calling it new. I'm calling it a fnord. Everything is now fascist-- without proof, without discussion, without any real application of rational thought. It's a statement of pure emotion now, meant to convey that something is not sanctioned by Big Brother. Can't say that kids shouldn't watch cartoons about sexual interests in school, thats fascist! We all know how much Hitler and the brownshirts couldn't stand Disney! No. I am not going to pretend this is a sensible interpretation of the facts. Lots of parents have lots of opinions about education and what their kids should be exposed to. And they aren't all fascists.

The parent who complained to the FL Dept of Ed is a facist. If they were upset their child watched the film, then complain to the school principal. Why demand an investigation over a freaking movie.

Put yourself in the shoes of a religious minority. Imagine you immigrated to this country from afar. And you want to integrate but pass on your religious values to your kid. And you think this movie makes it hard to justify your views to your kid bc it glamorizes and normalizes a lifestyles that you disagree with.

I will clarify that I am a secularist. But I have lived in a theocracy and I don't believe in using state power to coerce ideological views onto children.

Homosexuality isn't an ideological view. Therein lies the problem with your argument.

We view many sexual urges as something that may be natural, yet also must be suppressed for the sake of social good. We, as Americans, do not condone acting on any and all sexual urges, for ideological reasons. It is absolutely ideological that we have decided that it is in society's interest to make being gay permissible. And it is absolutely ideological that other cultures have not.

To what extent do we cater to fringe minorities at the expense of progress? Should we not show films with women working or being educated because that goes against certain ideological or religious points of view? How far down this slippery slope do we go?

A couple things. Traditionalists are not a fringe. They make up about half of our culture. And they make up an even larger portion of the migrants that are coming to the US in increasing numbers. Progressive views tend to exist largely among white, wealthy, educated people. While some progressives deviate from this stereotypes, they are not the norm. So as our culture becomes less and less white/wealthy, progressivism will wane even more.

Second. There isn't any major religion that is opposed to women working or being educated. Some religions emphasize gender roles, but there isn't a major religion that bans women working or being educated. You can find examples of fringe groups-- the Taliban, which is a government rather than a religion-- but no mainstream religion holds these views.

So. I would say you are intentionally pretending that sexual Traditionalists, who are mainstream, are the same thing as the Taliban, which are a fringe group, in order to claim that white, wealthy Americans should be able to make all decisions about education in America without any push back from minority groups.

The majority of Americans approve of gay marriage being legal. Whether or not they are “traditionalists.” I like traditions myself. Especially family traditions involving holidays. I also believe love is love and also think gay men make the best neighbors. (They really do.)

First, there is a difference between tolerance and celebration. Most people have no objection to gay marriage. That's tolerance. Other people actively want to normalize being gay and ensure that being gay is seen as a desirable state. That's celebration. This is why most people approve of gay marriage and yet the movie Bros was a box office bomb. Moreover, religious parents have also sought to ban the classic Romeo and Juliet for its "vulgar" depictions of romance, so its hard to make the case that they are against it simply because it is gay. It appears more accurate that the issue is sex of any type.

And meanwhile, Western Civ courses were removed from many colleges after Jesse Jackson famously led students at Stanford on a march chanting "hey, ho, western culture's got to go." Teaching Western Civ, the humanities course, was seen as a celebration of white males. (Citation below)
If we can eliminate history/humanities courses because acknowledgement is celebration, then the logic has to flow both ways. https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2020/02/19/how-revision-western-civ-curriculum-resulted-no-curriculum-all-opinion If merely

Presenting a totally sex neutral environment is optimal. I think there's a long history of liberals and conservatives both viewing educational instruction as state endorsement, so we are going to have to save the values-laden courses for private schools. As someone notes, if you want a values-based education, go isolate yourself in a community that shares your values. This is true for liberals as well. If you see gay cartoons as essential for the proper education of children, surely there is a private school or a local wine mom who will do that for you.

There's no need to "normalize" being gay because it ALREADY IS NORMAL to be gay. It's a normal part of the human condition. Some people are gay. Some people are left-handed. Some people are red-headed. Some people are disabled. Not the majority of people, but so what? Get over it.

"Sex neutral" means not talking about any kind of romance, hetero or otherwise. Good luck with that. Because love is also a part of the human condition.

p.s. what's a "gay" cartoon anyway?

The same people complaining about showing this movie are probably the same people who objected when Cheerios showed an inter-racial couple in a commercial. It went against their "ideological" point of view.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a parent I would be annoyed if a teacher showed this movie unless it were a rainy day during lunch or the last day of school or maybe even if there were a substitute. The teacher claims:

“Barbee said the movie focuses on humans' relationship to the environment, which was why she chose to show it to her class after a section on ecosystems, plants and animals.”

There are so many amazing Natgeo documentaries on Disney+ it’s ridiculous the teacher wasted time showing this movie. It is not based on a novel the students read either. She sounds like a lazy teacher. And not too bright if she works in Florida and thought no one would complain. If you go to common sense media there are a bunch of complaints from wacky parents.

+1. It's unbelievable what passes for "education" these days.

Whether or not people agree with religion, there are a lot of religious, conservative, or traditional people that don't want their kids to view materials that are counter to their values.

If you think that they are wrong and want their kids to view materials that promote lifestyles that are counter to their values, that is also an ideological position.

So rather than pit one ideological position against another, let's leave ideology out of the classroom and stop talking to elementary students about sex, full stop.

Viewing material that indicates gay people exist isn't talking about sex whatsoever you nutcase? Do you think kids with gay parents should be banned from ever mentioning their parents to other kids? Because you are implying that.

Sounds fascist.

I'm not remotely Implying that, you Marxist 1984 thought police Jr anti-sex leaguer. Get a life.

There is virtually nothing that could be shown that won't offend someone somewhere. So either we are lax overly overly strict. I err towards lax because overly strict means a cascading domino effect of fascism.

The movie was appropriate for the age group, bottom line.

BTW, I'm becoming convinced that fascism = Fnord. All reaction, no substance.

Oh.

Well here you go, Field of Dreams scene from over 30 years ago. Fascists then, fascists now. Or it was ok to use fascist then?

Ma'am, no one is going to watch your video and read your mind. Use your words.

Same sh*t different decade and people calling book (and movie) banners fascist isn't remotely new. Lazy argument to pretend it is.

I'm not calling it new. I'm calling it a fnord. Everything is now fascist-- without proof, without discussion, without any real application of rational thought. It's a statement of pure emotion now, meant to convey that something is not sanctioned by Big Brother. Can't say that kids shouldn't watch cartoons about sexual interests in school, thats fascist! We all know how much Hitler and the brownshirts couldn't stand Disney! No. I am not going to pretend this is a sensible interpretation of the facts. Lots of parents have lots of opinions about education and what their kids should be exposed to. And they aren't all fascists.

The parent who complained to the FL Dept of Ed is a facist. If they were upset their child watched the film, then complain to the school principal. Why demand an investigation over a freaking movie.

Put yourself in the shoes of a religious minority. Imagine you immigrated to this country from afar. And you want to integrate but pass on your religious values to your kid. And you think this movie makes it hard to justify your views to your kid bc it glamorizes and normalizes a lifestyles that you disagree with.

I will clarify that I am a secularist. But I have lived in a theocracy and I don't believe in using state power to coerce ideological views onto children.

Homosexuality isn't an ideological view. Therein lies the problem with your argument.

We view many sexual urges as something that may be natural, yet also must be suppressed for the sake of social good. We, as Americans, do not condone acting on any and all sexual urges, for ideological reasons. It is absolutely ideological that we have decided that it is in society's interest to make being gay permissible. And it is absolutely ideological that other cultures have not.

Many cultures view women as subordinate. Is it ideological that our society decided to give women equal rights? Should we ban anything that shows women having an opinion because it might violate someone's ideological POV? The point is, this is a slippery slope catering to extremes.

I'll play your silly game. Name a culture that believes women are nit allowed to have an opinion.

America up to 1920

It just tells me that you've never actually lived anywhere that challenged the modern American view of what it means for women to be empowered. Guess what, a lot of cultures think our treatment of women is abhorrent. It's not possible to truly understand other views if you never consider them. And maybe that's good for you, because it makes it easier to shut down parents with differing views.

Banning homosexuality from being depicted in any way, shape, or form including a PG rated Disney movie, in a public school, is shutting someone down. It's just a matter of which someone you side with.

That's just it. Teachers SHOULD be given boundaries about what is professionally acceptable. Teaching should not be an opportunity to explore your views, be heard, and be accepted by a captive bunch of 8 year olds. That's what a social life is for. It's totally okay to "shut down" lessons that don't adhere to expected norms.

The norm in our society now is that gay repationships are a normal part of humanity.

Interracial relationships also used to he outside the expected norms but they too are now accepted.

There was no “lesson” about gayness in this film. There was nothing to shut down.

If you are ao far outside the norms of our society that you object to your child seeing gay characters then perhaps you should isolate yourself in a like minded community like the Amish do. That’s your right. You don’t get to impose your religious views on others.

I agree with everything you've said here, yet it still leads me to the conclusion that showing a cartoon movie about a gay romance may be objectionable to many religious minorities, and the best way to proceed is by airing sexuality- neutral movies. If any movies are aired at all.

Please define "sexually neutral" movies please

A movie that does not feature a romantic relationship, or romantic attractions/interactions, as part of the storyline. There are stories that don't focus on sex or sexual relationships.

Please name a few of those movies. I must just be unfamiliar.

Right. So by this definition, a husband and wife cannot be shown whatsoever because it implies romantic attraction. So characters cannot be shown having married parents or being married whatsoever.

No. It is reasonable to have the existence of parents in books or films. Romance (straight or gay) can't be the plot or subplot. This is the standard in Florida. So kids can talk about their families, etc.

Please give me some examples of movies you think meet this standard. I am really scratching my head to think of any.

Animal Farm. You know, that classic novel about the dangers of elitism disguised as egalitarianism.

Nope, Ms Pilkington and Mr. Jones have sex in the movie https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0204824/parentalguide#advisory-nudity

You're right, but I wanted to put it on your reading list.

Is Orwell allowed in Florida? He was a pretty vocal socialist, or is this like conservatives idolizing Ayn Rand despite he being a pro-choice advocate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a parent I would be annoyed if a teacher showed this movie unless it were a rainy day during lunch or the last day of school or maybe even if there were a substitute. The teacher claims:

“Barbee said the movie focuses on humans' relationship to the environment, which was why she chose to show it to her class after a section on ecosystems, plants and animals.”

There are so many amazing Natgeo documentaries on Disney+ it’s ridiculous the teacher wasted time showing this movie. It is not based on a novel the students read either. She sounds like a lazy teacher. And not too bright if she works in Florida and thought no one would complain. If you go to common sense media there are a bunch of complaints from wacky parents.

+1. It's unbelievable what passes for "education" these days.

Whether or not people agree with religion, there are a lot of religious, conservative, or traditional people that don't want their kids to view materials that are counter to their values.

If you think that they are wrong and want their kids to view materials that promote lifestyles that are counter to their values, that is also an ideological position.

So rather than pit one ideological position against another, let's leave ideology out of the classroom and stop talking to elementary students about sex, full stop.

Viewing material that indicates gay people exist isn't talking about sex whatsoever you nutcase? Do you think kids with gay parents should be banned from ever mentioning their parents to other kids? Because you are implying that.

Sounds fascist.

I'm not remotely Implying that, you Marxist 1984 thought police Jr anti-sex leaguer. Get a life.

There is virtually nothing that could be shown that won't offend someone somewhere. So either we are lax overly overly strict. I err towards lax because overly strict means a cascading domino effect of fascism.

The movie was appropriate for the age group, bottom line.

BTW, I'm becoming convinced that fascism = Fnord. All reaction, no substance.

Oh.

Well here you go, Field of Dreams scene from over 30 years ago. Fascists then, fascists now. Or it was ok to use fascist then?

Ma'am, no one is going to watch your video and read your mind. Use your words.

Same sh*t different decade and people calling book (and movie) banners fascist isn't remotely new. Lazy argument to pretend it is.

I'm not calling it new. I'm calling it a fnord. Everything is now fascist-- without proof, without discussion, without any real application of rational thought. It's a statement of pure emotion now, meant to convey that something is not sanctioned by Big Brother. Can't say that kids shouldn't watch cartoons about sexual interests in school, thats fascist! We all know how much Hitler and the brownshirts couldn't stand Disney! No. I am not going to pretend this is a sensible interpretation of the facts. Lots of parents have lots of opinions about education and what their kids should be exposed to. And they aren't all fascists.

The parent who complained to the FL Dept of Ed is a facist. If they were upset their child watched the film, then complain to the school principal. Why demand an investigation over a freaking movie.

Put yourself in the shoes of a religious minority. Imagine you immigrated to this country from afar. And you want to integrate but pass on your religious values to your kid. And you think this movie makes it hard to justify your views to your kid bc it glamorizes and normalizes a lifestyles that you disagree with.

I will clarify that I am a secularist. But I have lived in a theocracy and I don't believe in using state power to coerce ideological views onto children.

Homosexuality isn't an ideological view. Therein lies the problem with your argument.

We view many sexual urges as something that may be natural, yet also must be suppressed for the sake of social good. We, as Americans, do not condone acting on any and all sexual urges, for ideological reasons. It is absolutely ideological that we have decided that it is in society's interest to make being gay permissible. And it is absolutely ideological that other cultures have not.

Many cultures view women as subordinate. Is it ideological that our society decided to give women equal rights? Should we ban anything that shows women having an opinion because it might violate someone's ideological POV? The point is, this is a slippery slope catering to extremes.

I'll play your silly game. Name a culture that believes women are nit allowed to have an opinion.

America up to 1920

It just tells me that you've never actually lived anywhere that challenged the modern American view of what it means for women to be empowered. Guess what, a lot of cultures think our treatment of women is abhorrent. It's not possible to truly understand other views if you never consider them. And maybe that's good for you, because it makes it easier to shut down parents with differing views.

Banning homosexuality from being depicted in any way, shape, or form including a PG rated Disney movie, in a public school, is shutting someone down. It's just a matter of which someone you side with.

That's just it. Teachers SHOULD be given boundaries about what is professionally acceptable. Teaching should not be an opportunity to explore your views, be heard, and be accepted by a captive bunch of 8 year olds. That's what a social life is for. It's totally okay to "shut down" lessons that don't adhere to expected norms.

The norm in our society now is that gay repationships are a normal part of humanity.

Interracial relationships also used to he outside the expected norms but they too are now accepted.

There was no “lesson” about gayness in this film. There was nothing to shut down.

If you are ao far outside the norms of our society that you object to your child seeing gay characters then perhaps you should isolate yourself in a like minded community like the Amish do. That’s your right. You don’t get to impose your religious views on others.

I agree with everything you've said here, yet it still leads me to the conclusion that showing a cartoon movie about a gay romance may be objectionable to many religious minorities, and the best way to proceed is by airing sexuality- neutral movies. If any movies are aired at all.

It's not a "cartoon about a gay romance." It's a cartoon about explorers and eco systems, which tied into the class lesson plan.
She followed the protocol, which is to ensure that all kids had signed permission slips for PG movies.
If you're so hung up on your religious beliefs, go to a religious school. You can control the content there. You don't get to dictate to other religions or people without religion at a *public* school what they can and cannot witness and be OK with.

We aren't talking about me. For the record, I am not religious and I do screen Disney movies for my kids, take them to the houses of gay friends, etc. This might blow your mind, but it is possible to respect people who have different beliefs and to make room for them. I respect religious minorities and don't impose my worldview on them, and expect the same in return.

If there were no gay subplot to the movie, this wouldn't be an issue. But moreover, you need to pick a position. Is there *no* gay romance and therefore it is not a problem, or is there a gay romance and that is good and right and should be presented to all children in public schools? You are arguing two conflicting positions.

NP. But you're splitting hairs over something that is irrelevant. Gay couples are real people who live in this country and entitled to the same rights/respect as everyone else. It is supremely ignorant and offensive to imply that those relationships should not be shown to kids/have kids exposed to them as any other normal relationship. This is not a "respect for different beliefs" position. This is an I will not tolerate that sort of view or position with regard to gay couples, which encompasses my family members and friends.

I am not tolerant over intolerance. Sorry.

You're intentionally mischaracterizing the issue to avoid having to discuss it on its merits. There is no ban on mentioning families, marriages, etc in a Florida elementary classroom. There is a ban on discussing the nature of the relationship.

Permissible: "my moms and I went fishing this weekend"

Not Permissible: "my moms fell in love while roommates at University of Alabama, after discovering that they were attracted to each other"

One is focused on romance. The other isn't. One is obviously normal and the other would be deemed by many as irrelevant to the education of elementary students, if not completely unacceptable by their religious standards.

No one is discussing imposing religious beliefs on kids. So it's unclear why you are demanding that your values be imposed. As you've suggested, you can isolate yourself in a community of like-minded ideologues if you want to be surrounded by reminders of your values.

Why is it you want to characterize a gay marriage as being about "your values" but you don't seem to associate hetero marriage as a values thing?

And really, you're saying a kid can't talk in class about how his mom and dad met and fell in love??? Are you really saying that? Or are you suggesting such talk is only banned if the couple in question are gay?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a parent I would be annoyed if a teacher showed this movie unless it were a rainy day during lunch or the last day of school or maybe even if there were a substitute. The teacher claims:

“Barbee said the movie focuses on humans' relationship to the environment, which was why she chose to show it to her class after a section on ecosystems, plants and animals.”

There are so many amazing Natgeo documentaries on Disney+ it’s ridiculous the teacher wasted time showing this movie. It is not based on a novel the students read either. She sounds like a lazy teacher. And not too bright if she works in Florida and thought no one would complain. If you go to common sense media there are a bunch of complaints from wacky parents.

+1. It's unbelievable what passes for "education" these days.

Whether or not people agree with religion, there are a lot of religious, conservative, or traditional people that don't want their kids to view materials that are counter to their values.

If you think that they are wrong and want their kids to view materials that promote lifestyles that are counter to their values, that is also an ideological position.

So rather than pit one ideological position against another, let's leave ideology out of the classroom and stop talking to elementary students about sex, full stop.

Viewing material that indicates gay people exist isn't talking about sex whatsoever you nutcase? Do you think kids with gay parents should be banned from ever mentioning their parents to other kids? Because you are implying that.

Sounds fascist.

I'm not remotely Implying that, you Marxist 1984 thought police Jr anti-sex leaguer. Get a life.

There is virtually nothing that could be shown that won't offend someone somewhere. So either we are lax overly overly strict. I err towards lax because overly strict means a cascading domino effect of fascism.

The movie was appropriate for the age group, bottom line.

BTW, I'm becoming convinced that fascism = Fnord. All reaction, no substance.

Oh.

Well here you go, Field of Dreams scene from over 30 years ago. Fascists then, fascists now. Or it was ok to use fascist then?

Ma'am, no one is going to watch your video and read your mind. Use your words.

Same sh*t different decade and people calling book (and movie) banners fascist isn't remotely new. Lazy argument to pretend it is.

I'm not calling it new. I'm calling it a fnord. Everything is now fascist-- without proof, without discussion, without any real application of rational thought. It's a statement of pure emotion now, meant to convey that something is not sanctioned by Big Brother. Can't say that kids shouldn't watch cartoons about sexual interests in school, thats fascist! We all know how much Hitler and the brownshirts couldn't stand Disney! No. I am not going to pretend this is a sensible interpretation of the facts. Lots of parents have lots of opinions about education and what their kids should be exposed to. And they aren't all fascists.

The parent who complained to the FL Dept of Ed is a facist. If they were upset their child watched the film, then complain to the school principal. Why demand an investigation over a freaking movie.

Put yourself in the shoes of a religious minority. Imagine you immigrated to this country from afar. And you want to integrate but pass on your religious values to your kid. And you think this movie makes it hard to justify your views to your kid bc it glamorizes and normalizes a lifestyles that you disagree with.

I will clarify that I am a secularist. But I have lived in a theocracy and I don't believe in using state power to coerce ideological views onto children.

Homosexuality isn't an ideological view. Therein lies the problem with your argument.

We view many sexual urges as something that may be natural, yet also must be suppressed for the sake of social good. We, as Americans, do not condone acting on any and all sexual urges, for ideological reasons. It is absolutely ideological that we have decided that it is in society's interest to make being gay permissible. And it is absolutely ideological that other cultures have not.

To what extent do we cater to fringe minorities at the expense of progress? Should we not show films with women working or being educated because that goes against certain ideological or religious points of view? How far down this slippery slope do we go?

A couple things. Traditionalists are not a fringe. They make up about half of our culture. And they make up an even larger portion of the migrants that are coming to the US in increasing numbers. Progressive views tend to exist largely among white, wealthy, educated people. While some progressives deviate from this stereotypes, they are not the norm. So as our culture becomes less and less white/wealthy, progressivism will wane even more.

Second. There isn't any major religion that is opposed to women working or being educated. Some religions emphasize gender roles, but there isn't a major religion that bans women working or being educated. You can find examples of fringe groups-- the Taliban, which is a government rather than a religion-- but no mainstream religion holds these views.

So. I would say you are intentionally pretending that sexual Traditionalists, who are mainstream, are the same thing as the Taliban, which are a fringe group, in order to claim that white, wealthy Americans should be able to make all decisions about education in America without any push back from minority groups.

The majority of Americans approve of gay marriage being legal. Whether or not they are “traditionalists.” I like traditions myself. Especially family traditions involving holidays. I also believe love is love and also think gay men make the best neighbors. (They really do.)

First, there is a difference between tolerance and celebration. Most people have no objection to gay marriage. That's tolerance. Other people actively want to normalize being gay and ensure that being gay is seen as a desirable state. That's celebration. This is why most people approve of gay marriage and yet the movie Bros was a box office bomb. Moreover, religious parents have also sought to ban the classic Romeo and Juliet for its "vulgar" depictions of romance, so its hard to make the case that they are against it simply because it is gay. It appears more accurate that the issue is sex of any type.

And meanwhile, Western Civ courses were removed from many colleges after Jesse Jackson famously led students at Stanford on a march chanting "hey, ho, western culture's got to go." Teaching Western Civ, the humanities course, was seen as a celebration of white males. (Citation below)
If we can eliminate history/humanities courses because acknowledgement is celebration, then the logic has to flow both ways. https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2020/02/19/how-revision-western-civ-curriculum-resulted-no-curriculum-all-opinion If merely

Presenting a totally sex neutral environment is optimal. I think there's a long history of liberals and conservatives both viewing educational instruction as state endorsement, so we are going to have to save the values-laden courses for private schools. As someone notes, if you want a values-based education, go isolate yourself in a community that shares your values. This is true for liberals as well. If you see gay cartoons as essential for the proper education of children, surely there is a private school or a local wine mom who will do that for you.

There's no need to "normalize" being gay because it ALREADY IS NORMAL to be gay. It's a normal part of the human condition. Some people are gay. Some people are left-handed. Some people are red-headed. Some people are disabled. Not the majority of people, but so what? Get over it.

"Sex neutral" means not talking about any kind of romance, hetero or otherwise. Good luck with that. Because love is also a part of the human condition.

p.s. what's a "gay" cartoon anyway?

This. The PP above presented quite a word salad but none of that matters. At all. The BOLDED is correct. You don't have to LIKE it. YOu do have to tolerate it as normal rather than some second class caste.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a parent I would be annoyed if a teacher showed this movie unless it were a rainy day during lunch or the last day of school or maybe even if there were a substitute. The teacher claims:

“Barbee said the movie focuses on humans' relationship to the environment, which was why she chose to show it to her class after a section on ecosystems, plants and animals.”

There are so many amazing Natgeo documentaries on Disney+ it’s ridiculous the teacher wasted time showing this movie. It is not based on a novel the students read either. She sounds like a lazy teacher. And not too bright if she works in Florida and thought no one would complain. If you go to common sense media there are a bunch of complaints from wacky parents.

+1. It's unbelievable what passes for "education" these days.

Whether or not people agree with religion, there are a lot of religious, conservative, or traditional people that don't want their kids to view materials that are counter to their values.

If you think that they are wrong and want their kids to view materials that promote lifestyles that are counter to their values, that is also an ideological position.

So rather than pit one ideological position against another, let's leave ideology out of the classroom and stop talking to elementary students about sex, full stop.

Viewing material that indicates gay people exist isn't talking about sex whatsoever you nutcase? Do you think kids with gay parents should be banned from ever mentioning their parents to other kids? Because you are implying that.

Sounds fascist.

I'm not remotely Implying that, you Marxist 1984 thought police Jr anti-sex leaguer. Get a life.

There is virtually nothing that could be shown that won't offend someone somewhere. So either we are lax overly overly strict. I err towards lax because overly strict means a cascading domino effect of fascism.

The movie was appropriate for the age group, bottom line.

BTW, I'm becoming convinced that fascism = Fnord. All reaction, no substance.

Oh.

Well here you go, Field of Dreams scene from over 30 years ago. Fascists then, fascists now. Or it was ok to use fascist then?

Ma'am, no one is going to watch your video and read your mind. Use your words.

Same sh*t different decade and people calling book (and movie) banners fascist isn't remotely new. Lazy argument to pretend it is.

I'm not calling it new. I'm calling it a fnord. Everything is now fascist-- without proof, without discussion, without any real application of rational thought. It's a statement of pure emotion now, meant to convey that something is not sanctioned by Big Brother. Can't say that kids shouldn't watch cartoons about sexual interests in school, thats fascist! We all know how much Hitler and the brownshirts couldn't stand Disney! No. I am not going to pretend this is a sensible interpretation of the facts. Lots of parents have lots of opinions about education and what their kids should be exposed to. And they aren't all fascists.

The parent who complained to the FL Dept of Ed is a facist. If they were upset their child watched the film, then complain to the school principal. Why demand an investigation over a freaking movie.

Put yourself in the shoes of a religious minority. Imagine you immigrated to this country from afar. And you want to integrate but pass on your religious values to your kid. And you think this movie makes it hard to justify your views to your kid bc it glamorizes and normalizes a lifestyles that you disagree with.

I will clarify that I am a secularist. But I have lived in a theocracy and I don't believe in using state power to coerce ideological views onto children.

Homosexuality isn't an ideological view. Therein lies the problem with your argument.

We view many sexual urges as something that may be natural, yet also must be suppressed for the sake of social good. We, as Americans, do not condone acting on any and all sexual urges, for ideological reasons. It is absolutely ideological that we have decided that it is in society's interest to make being gay permissible. And it is absolutely ideological that other cultures have not.

To what extent do we cater to fringe minorities at the expense of progress? Should we not show films with women working or being educated because that goes against certain ideological or religious points of view? How far down this slippery slope do we go?

A couple things. Traditionalists are not a fringe. They make up about half of our culture. And they make up an even larger portion of the migrants that are coming to the US in increasing numbers. Progressive views tend to exist largely among white, wealthy, educated people. While some progressives deviate from this stereotypes, they are not the norm. So as our culture becomes less and less white/wealthy, progressivism will wane even more.

Second. There isn't any major religion that is opposed to women working or being educated. Some religions emphasize gender roles, but there isn't a major religion that bans women working or being educated. You can find examples of fringe groups-- the Taliban, which is a government rather than a religion-- but no mainstream religion holds these views.

So. I would say you are intentionally pretending that sexual Traditionalists, who are mainstream, are the same thing as the Taliban, which are a fringe group, in order to claim that white, wealthy Americans should be able to make all decisions about education in America without any push back from minority groups.

The majority of Americans approve of gay marriage being legal. Whether or not they are “traditionalists.” I like traditions myself. Especially family traditions involving holidays. I also believe love is love and also think gay men make the best neighbors. (They really do.)

First, there is a difference between tolerance and celebration. Most people have no objection to gay marriage. That's tolerance. Other people actively want to normalize being gay and ensure that being gay is seen as a desirable state. That's celebration. This is why most people approve of gay marriage and yet the movie Bros was a box office bomb. Moreover, religious parents have also sought to ban the classic Romeo and Juliet for its "vulgar" depictions of romance, so its hard to make the case that they are against it simply because it is gay. It appears more accurate that the issue is sex of any type.

And meanwhile, Western Civ courses were removed from many colleges after Jesse Jackson famously led students at Stanford on a march chanting "hey, ho, western culture's got to go." Teaching Western Civ, the humanities course, was seen as a celebration of white males. (Citation below)
If we can eliminate history/humanities courses because acknowledgement is celebration, then the logic has to flow both ways. https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2020/02/19/how-revision-western-civ-curriculum-resulted-no-curriculum-all-opinion If merely

Presenting a totally sex neutral environment is optimal. I think there's a long history of liberals and conservatives both viewing educational instruction as state endorsement, so we are going to have to save the values-laden courses for private schools. As someone notes, if you want a values-based education, go isolate yourself in a community that shares your values. This is true for liberals as well. If you see gay cartoons as essential for the proper education of children, surely there is a private school or a local wine mom who will do that for you.

There's no need to "normalize" being gay because it ALREADY IS NORMAL to be gay. It's a normal part of the human condition. Some people are gay. Some people are left-handed. Some people are red-headed. Some people are disabled. Not the majority of people, but so what? Get over it.

"Sex neutral" means not talking about any kind of romance, hetero or otherwise. Good luck with that. Because love is also a part of the human condition.

p.s. what's a "gay" cartoon anyway?

This. The PP above presented quite a word salad but none of that matters. At all. The BOLDED is correct. You don't have to LIKE it. YOu do have to tolerate it as normal rather than some second class caste.

I'm ideologically opposed to red heads. Can we ban Brave?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a parent I would be annoyed if a teacher showed this movie unless it were a rainy day during lunch or the last day of school or maybe even if there were a substitute. The teacher claims:

“Barbee said the movie focuses on humans' relationship to the environment, which was why she chose to show it to her class after a section on ecosystems, plants and animals.”

There are so many amazing Natgeo documentaries on Disney+ it’s ridiculous the teacher wasted time showing this movie. It is not based on a novel the students read either. She sounds like a lazy teacher. And not too bright if she works in Florida and thought no one would complain. If you go to common sense media there are a bunch of complaints from wacky parents.

+1. It's unbelievable what passes for "education" these days.

Whether or not people agree with religion, there are a lot of religious, conservative, or traditional people that don't want their kids to view materials that are counter to their values.

If you think that they are wrong and want their kids to view materials that promote lifestyles that are counter to their values, that is also an ideological position.

So rather than pit one ideological position against another, let's leave ideology out of the classroom and stop talking to elementary students about sex, full stop.

Viewing material that indicates gay people exist isn't talking about sex whatsoever you nutcase? Do you think kids with gay parents should be banned from ever mentioning their parents to other kids? Because you are implying that.

Sounds fascist.

I'm not remotely Implying that, you Marxist 1984 thought police Jr anti-sex leaguer. Get a life.

There is virtually nothing that could be shown that won't offend someone somewhere. So either we are lax overly overly strict. I err towards lax because overly strict means a cascading domino effect of fascism.

The movie was appropriate for the age group, bottom line.

BTW, I'm becoming convinced that fascism = Fnord. All reaction, no substance.

Oh.

Well here you go, Field of Dreams scene from over 30 years ago. Fascists then, fascists now. Or it was ok to use fascist then?

Ma'am, no one is going to watch your video and read your mind. Use your words.

Same sh*t different decade and people calling book (and movie) banners fascist isn't remotely new. Lazy argument to pretend it is.

I'm not calling it new. I'm calling it a fnord. Everything is now fascist-- without proof, without discussion, without any real application of rational thought. It's a statement of pure emotion now, meant to convey that something is not sanctioned by Big Brother. Can't say that kids shouldn't watch cartoons about sexual interests in school, thats fascist! We all know how much Hitler and the brownshirts couldn't stand Disney! No. I am not going to pretend this is a sensible interpretation of the facts. Lots of parents have lots of opinions about education and what their kids should be exposed to. And they aren't all fascists.

The parent who complained to the FL Dept of Ed is a facist. If they were upset their child watched the film, then complain to the school principal. Why demand an investigation over a freaking movie.

Put yourself in the shoes of a religious minority. Imagine you immigrated to this country from afar. And you want to integrate but pass on your religious values to your kid. And you think this movie makes it hard to justify your views to your kid bc it glamorizes and normalizes a lifestyles that you disagree with.

I will clarify that I am a secularist. But I have lived in a theocracy and I don't believe in using state power to coerce ideological views onto children.

Homosexuality isn't an ideological view. Therein lies the problem with your argument.

We view many sexual urges as something that may be natural, yet also must be suppressed for the sake of social good. We, as Americans, do not condone acting on any and all sexual urges, for ideological reasons. It is absolutely ideological that we have decided that it is in society's interest to make being gay permissible. And it is absolutely ideological that other cultures have not.

Many cultures view women as subordinate. Is it ideological that our society decided to give women equal rights? Should we ban anything that shows women having an opinion because it might violate someone's ideological POV? The point is, this is a slippery slope catering to extremes.

I'll play your silly game. Name a culture that believes women are nit allowed to have an opinion.

America up to 1920

It just tells me that you've never actually lived anywhere that challenged the modern American view of what it means for women to be empowered. Guess what, a lot of cultures think our treatment of women is abhorrent. It's not possible to truly understand other views if you never consider them. And maybe that's good for you, because it makes it easier to shut down parents with differing views.

Banning homosexuality from being depicted in any way, shape, or form including a PG rated Disney movie, in a public school, is shutting someone down. It's just a matter of which someone you side with.

That's just it. Teachers SHOULD be given boundaries about what is professionally acceptable. Teaching should not be an opportunity to explore your views, be heard, and be accepted by a captive bunch of 8 year olds. That's what a social life is for. It's totally okay to "shut down" lessons that don't adhere to expected norms.

The norm in our society now is that gay repationships are a normal part of humanity.

Interracial relationships also used to he outside the expected norms but they too are now accepted.

There was no “lesson” about gayness in this film. There was nothing to shut down.

If you are ao far outside the norms of our society that you object to your child seeing gay characters then perhaps you should isolate yourself in a like minded community like the Amish do. That’s your right. You don’t get to impose your religious views on others.

I agree with everything you've said here, yet it still leads me to the conclusion that showing a cartoon movie about a gay romance may be objectionable to many religious minorities, and the best way to proceed is by airing sexuality- neutral movies. If any movies are aired at all.

Please define "sexually neutral" movies please

A movie that does not feature a romantic relationship, or romantic attractions/interactions, as part of the storyline. There are stories that don't focus on sex or sexual relationships.

Please name a few of those movies. I must just be unfamiliar.

Personally I can't think of a single movie. Even something as innocuous as Peppa Pig has the a relationship between two parents

I mean there have been books written about how the vast majority of Hollywood movies are premised on heterosexual relationships.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As a parent I would be annoyed if a teacher showed this movie unless it were a rainy day during lunch or the last day of school or maybe even if there were a substitute. The teacher claims:

“Barbee said the movie focuses on humans' relationship to the environment, which was why she chose to show it to her class after a section on ecosystems, plants and animals.”

There are so many amazing Natgeo documentaries on Disney+ it’s ridiculous the teacher wasted time showing this movie. It is not based on a novel the students read either. She sounds like a lazy teacher. And not too bright if she works in Florida and thought no one would complain. If you go to common sense media there are a bunch of complaints from wacky parents.

+1. It's unbelievable what passes for "education" these days.

Whether or not people agree with religion, there are a lot of religious, conservative, or traditional people that don't want their kids to view materials that are counter to their values.

If you think that they are wrong and want their kids to view materials that promote lifestyles that are counter to their values, that is also an ideological position.

So rather than pit one ideological position against another, let's leave ideology out of the classroom and stop talking to elementary students about sex, full stop.

Viewing material that indicates gay people exist isn't talking about sex whatsoever you nutcase? Do you think kids with gay parents should be banned from ever mentioning their parents to other kids? Because you are implying that.

Sounds fascist.

I'm not remotely Implying that, you Marxist 1984 thought police Jr anti-sex leaguer. Get a life.

There is virtually nothing that could be shown that won't offend someone somewhere. So either we are lax overly overly strict. I err towards lax because overly strict means a cascading domino effect of fascism.

The movie was appropriate for the age group, bottom line.

BTW, I'm becoming convinced that fascism = Fnord. All reaction, no substance.

Oh.

Well here you go, Field of Dreams scene from over 30 years ago. Fascists then, fascists now. Or it was ok to use fascist then?

Ma'am, no one is going to watch your video and read your mind. Use your words.

Same sh*t different decade and people calling book (and movie) banners fascist isn't remotely new. Lazy argument to pretend it is.

I'm not calling it new. I'm calling it a fnord. Everything is now fascist-- without proof, without discussion, without any real application of rational thought. It's a statement of pure emotion now, meant to convey that something is not sanctioned by Big Brother. Can't say that kids shouldn't watch cartoons about sexual interests in school, thats fascist! We all know how much Hitler and the brownshirts couldn't stand Disney! No. I am not going to pretend this is a sensible interpretation of the facts. Lots of parents have lots of opinions about education and what their kids should be exposed to. And they aren't all fascists.

The parent who complained to the FL Dept of Ed is a facist. If they were upset their child watched the film, then complain to the school principal. Why demand an investigation over a freaking movie.

Put yourself in the shoes of a religious minority. Imagine you immigrated to this country from afar. And you want to integrate but pass on your religious values to your kid. And you think this movie makes it hard to justify your views to your kid bc it glamorizes and normalizes a lifestyles that you disagree with.

I will clarify that I am a secularist. But I have lived in a theocracy and I don't believe in using state power to coerce ideological views onto children.

Homosexuality isn't an ideological view. Therein lies the problem with your argument.

We view many sexual urges as something that may be natural, yet also must be suppressed for the sake of social good. We, as Americans, do not condone acting on any and all sexual urges, for ideological reasons. It is absolutely ideological that we have decided that it is in society's interest to make being gay permissible. And it is absolutely ideological that other cultures have not.

Many cultures view women as subordinate. Is it ideological that our society decided to give women equal rights? Should we ban anything that shows women having an opinion because it might violate someone's ideological POV? The point is, this is a slippery slope catering to extremes.

I'll play your silly game. Name a culture that believes women are nit allowed to have an opinion.

America up to 1920

It just tells me that you've never actually lived anywhere that challenged the modern American view of what it means for women to be empowered. Guess what, a lot of cultures think our treatment of women is abhorrent. It's not possible to truly understand other views if you never consider them. And maybe that's good for you, because it makes it easier to shut down parents with differing views.

Banning homosexuality from being depicted in any way, shape, or form including a PG rated Disney movie, in a public school, is shutting someone down. It's just a matter of which someone you side with.

That's just it. Teachers SHOULD be given boundaries about what is professionally acceptable. Teaching should not be an opportunity to explore your views, be heard, and be accepted by a captive bunch of 8 year olds. That's what a social life is for. It's totally okay to "shut down" lessons that don't adhere to expected norms.

The norm in our society now is that gay repationships are a normal part of humanity.

Interracial relationships also used to he outside the expected norms but they too are now accepted.

There was no “lesson” about gayness in this film. There was nothing to shut down.

If you are ao far outside the norms of our society that you object to your child seeing gay characters then perhaps you should isolate yourself in a like minded community like the Amish do. That’s your right. You don’t get to impose your religious views on others.

I agree with everything you've said here, yet it still leads me to the conclusion that showing a cartoon movie about a gay romance may be objectionable to many religious minorities, and the best way to proceed is by airing sexuality- neutral movies. If any movies are aired at all.

Please define "sexually neutral" movies please

A movie that does not feature a romantic relationship, or romantic attractions/interactions, as part of the storyline. There are stories that don't focus on sex or sexual relationships.

Please name a few of those movies. I must just be unfamiliar.

You only read/view children's movies that are romantic? Okay. That's weird.

Finding Nemo. Wizard of Oz. The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.

The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe! I thought you were against shoving religion down kids' throats!

It's been a while since I read it, but it was about mythical woodland creatures. Not Jesus Christ.

It’s very explicitly an allegory about the death and resurrection of Christ.

There is no mention of Jesus or religion.

Most books have the journey of the hero story arc. Not unique.

Aslan is killed as a sacrifice to save the kids. And then he is resurrected, defeats the witch, and crowns the kids kings and queens of narnia. My then 9 year old who is only vaguely familiar with the New Testament picked up on this.

Okay, it's still not a religious text even if there are parallels. No kid will pray to Aslan after reading it. Most likely....

"The Narnian books are not as much allegory as supposal. 'Suppose there were a Narnian world and it, like ours, needed redemption. What kind of incarnation and Passion might Christ be supposed to undergo there?'"

Seems like the author, who happened to be a Christian theologian, intended more than just parallels

[Anonymous]

I’d like to see the Reading/Math/Science test scores of this particular classroom. If everyone is not meeting expectations, they should be working on academics….not watch Disney movies.