Democracy is values too. Freedom. Liberty. All those are values.
That not everyone shares.
Unless you are only teaching kids math and computers, good luck getting values out of education. And even there you're sure to find some kind of values.
Anonymous wrote: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.
The teacher allowed the movie (a PG-rated Disney movie for which the parents had signed a consent for a PG movie to be shown) for kids to watch after completing standardized testing.
I went to a top rated, extremely expensive, private school 30 years ago. Even then, sometimes teachers allowed a movie for some decompression time. Chill.
Anonymous wrote: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.
The teacher allowed the movie (a PG-rated Disney movie for which the parents had signed a consent for a PG movie to be shown) for kids to watch after completing standardized testing.
I went to a top rated, extremely expensive, private school 30 years ago. Even then, sometimes teachers allowed a movie for some decompression time. Chill.
30 years ago? Beta Max? Bless your heart, grandma.
Yep actually more than 30 years ago. In fifth grade in the early 90s, our teacher allowed us to accrue points for good behavior toward a pizza party reward. The class got to vote on the movie.
The horror!
I guess I could be a grandma by GOP standards of marry 'em young, so I can see where you got that impression though.
Name the movie from 30+ years ago that featured gay relationship. We will wait.
I don't differentiate between gay or hetero relationships as both exist within nature.
Certainly, we watched movies that showed relationships.
Okay, so you remember the pizza, but can’t name the 5th grade movie featuring homosexuals 30 years ago. Cool story. Thanks for sharing.
Nope, I can't, it wasn't common. It's becoming common now. Because it's a normal part of life. Clearly you have an issue with it not unlike the folks who foamed at the mouth over the interratial Cheerios commercial 10 years ago.
To clarify before you jump on this. It wasn't common to show then because it was still not an accepted part of society (look how long it took to allow gay marriage), not because it wasn't common to be gay. It also wasn't as common to show interracial relationships back then either. Should we ban anything showing that too?
Movies that featured lgbt relationships 30 years ago;
"October 18, 1990: Karl and Homer kiss in The Simpsons episode, "Simpson and Delilah," said to be the first animated male-male kiss to air on network television.[22]
November 16, 1991: Beauty and the Beast begins showing in theaters across the U.S. In the film, Gaston and LeFou were created by a gay animator named Andreas Deja, as would Jafar from the Aladdin the following year,[107] who sang music by gay composer Howard Ashman.
October 24, 1994: Gargoyles starts airing on syndicated television. The series would include Lexington, Janine "Fox" Renard, Owen Burnett and Puck.
1995: Crapston Villas started airing on Channel 4. It would be the first animated series on British television to present openly gay characters.[61]
Wikipedia
Animated shows and films have had gay and gay-ish characters forever. Bugs Bunny was in drag many times since 1940 and often kissed a male antagonist. Tom & Jerry also loved to cross-dress. The Simpsons has had gay characters and jokes about characters being in the closet. Mulan dressed as a man and humiliated the macho Huns. Arthur’s male teacher married another man on PBS Kids. Thomas the Tank Engine had a gender-neutral train. Jerry Falwell completely lost his mind about Tinky Winky, the gayish Teletubby. A bunch of Japanese animation has had gay characters, though some are cringy stereotypes. Dragon Ball had a gay Nazi villain. That would create a major conflict for Ron Desantis.
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?
What are you blathering about? I"m not the one with my panties in a bunch over a CARTOON romance. I don't care if the couple is hetero or gay, and you and others seem to care, which is entirely the point.
My "values" are acknowledging and accepting that gay couples are normal and are and have been part of this country. They are not scary, gross, repulsive, abnormal . .. . As such it should be no big deal for discussion of, or movies featuring, gay couples are shown to kids. Especially a $%^$#% cartoon.
My values do not include labeling some relationships are good or better or right. Yours clearly do. And that says a lot about you.
And to the extent you think that movies shown should have NO romantic contents? LOL. GL with that.
Anonymous wrote:Animated shows and films have had gay and gay-ish characters forever. Bugs Bunny was in drag many times since 1940 and often kissed a male antagonist. Tom & Jerry also loved to cross-dress. The Simpsons has had gay characters and jokes about characters being in the closet. Mulan dressed as a man and humiliated the macho Huns. Arthur’s male teacher married another man on PBS Kids. Thomas the Tank Engine had a gender-neutral train. Jerry Falwell completely lost his mind about Tinky Winky, the gayish Teletubby. A bunch of Japanese animation has had gay characters, though some are cringy stereotypes. Dragon Ball had a gay Nazi villain. That would create a major conflict for Ron Desantis.
Wow, you should be a contestant on Gay Jeopardy. “I’ll take Tinky Winky for $200, Alex.”
Anonymous wrote:Animated shows and films have had gay and gay-ish characters forever. Bugs Bunny was in drag many times since 1940 and often kissed a male antagonist. Tom & Jerry also loved to cross-dress. The Simpsons has had gay characters and jokes about characters being in the closet. Mulan dressed as a man and humiliated the macho Huns. Arthur’s male teacher married another man on PBS Kids. Thomas the Tank Engine had a gender-neutral train. Jerry Falwell completely lost his mind about Tinky Winky, the gayish Teletubby. A bunch of Japanese animation has had gay characters, though some are cringy stereotypes. Dragon Ball had a gay Nazi villain. That would create a major conflict for Ron Desantis.
Wow, you should be a contestant on Gay Jeopardy. “I’ll take Tinky Winky for $200, Alex.”
Anonymous wrote:Animated shows and films have had gay and gay-ish characters forever. Bugs Bunny was in drag many times since 1940 and often kissed a male antagonist. Tom & Jerry also loved to cross-dress. The Simpsons has had gay characters and jokes about characters being in the closet. Mulan dressed as a man and humiliated the macho Huns. Arthur’s male teacher married another man on PBS Kids. Thomas the Tank Engine had a gender-neutral train. Jerry Falwell completely lost his mind about Tinky Winky, the gayish Teletubby. A bunch of Japanese animation has had gay characters, though some are cringy stereotypes. Dragon Ball had a gay Nazi villain. That would create a major conflict for Ron Desantis.
Wow, you should be a contestant on Gay Jeopardy. “I’ll take Tinky Winky for $200, Alex.”
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.
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?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}