From: nelson@reed.edu (Nelson Minar)
Newsgroups: soc.motss
Subject: Re: Children
Date: 31 Jul 92 00:09:23 GMT
Article-I.D.: reed.1992Jul31.000923.8387
Organization: Reed College, Portland, OR

In article <1992Jul28.173859.2862@spdcc.com> joe@spdcc.com (Joseph Francis) writes:
>An interesting problem in the United States is that parents believe
>that it is their right and privilege (hey RY, check out the spelling,
>dude!) to be the sole determinant of the their child's values. Why?

I'm glad you posted this. This phenomenon is something that's been
annoying me for a long time.

There are ways to rebel against it, honest subversion. Kissing motss
in front of children. Handing out condoms and AIDS info at high
schools. Doing our best to get in the news, so queer children know
they are not alone. Not allowing schools to teach that homosexuality
is evil. "Recruiting", if you will.

One of the worst things a parent can do is to teach their child to
hate. But it is the parent's right in America to teach their children
to hate; both themselves and other people. The parent's right to teach
their child to hate niggers, to want to go out and lynch them. The
parent's right to teach little Susie never to touch herself *down
there*, that sex is bad. The parent's right to teach little Bobbie
that real men go out and fuck women, and that nasty queers (of which
Bobbie is destined to be, unfortunately) are scum.

And in America, it is considered the parent's right not to teach their
children about other things. No education about pregnancy, they
demand: it might encourage their darlings to do the nasty. And don't
tell them that a condom can save their life, or a clean needle.

Why is this a right? In my mind, children are a public resource. I'm
going to have to live with the kids that people around my raise -
don't I have the right to help teach them to be decent human beings?
The government already mandates some of this - kids are required to be
taught history, math, reading. Why not teach them about respect for
other people?

I know why. It's controversial. To take an example:

>In the arena of sexual politics, all reason flies out the window.

"Don't teach Jamail about anal sex, because it's bad."

What is the situation like in other countries? We already had one
poster from Denmark remark that sex education should be more available
in schools - is that indeed the case there?

In America, most of the high school sex education is extremely neutral
plumbing. There is some talk about contraception (with chastity
emphasized) and some talk about STDs. If kids are lucky, they'll be
told that sex can be good and wonderful. If they're lucky.

>You wouldn't be able to imagine a school which doesn't teach about
>the Civil War or Arithmetic because parents don't want their children
>to know.

You don't have to look very far back for that. Only the subject was
evolutionary biology, not history.

And large parts of history *still* aren't taught, for being too
controversial. Most of my friends who are my age (20) aren't well
informed about the Japanese internment camps, for example.

>Why should a parent have the right to deny basic information to a
>child about such things? 

Indeed. I think this issue is particularly important to lesbians and
gays.
-- 
                __
nelson@reed.edu \/                                        All things are true
Newsgroups: soc.motss,soc.bi