Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by dbmag9)

    It's not the content of any academic syllabus that I know of, nor is it in the law, that children shouldn't pour paint on each others' drawings. But schools should teach them not to, because it's wrong. This isn't a case of sinister 'education' to mean brainwashing or something.
    Because its rude; it's primary school stuff really. There's a difference between politeness and morals. A school should try to steer away from teaching the latter in my opinion, but should always instill politeness in its students.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    What a misleading thread title.

    So, essentially a kid has been using a homophobic word and their school, very responsibly so, decided to get in external help with how to stem these type of inappropriate behaviours in their pupils to prevent further cases of bullying.

    Absolutely no different to schools bringing in organisations for other types of training sessions; drugs, strangers etc.

    What's the problem?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thesabbath)
    that the gay rights group should not be allowed to impose its views on young children.
    neither should catholics (or protestants, or muslims etc)

    (Original post by brightonlad89)
    What a misleading thread title.
    So, essentially a kid has been using a homophobic word and their school, very responsibly so, decided to get in external help with how to stem these type of inappropriate behaviours in their pupils to prevent further cases of bullying.
    Absolutely no different to schools bringing in police for other types of training sessions; drugs, strangers etc.
    What's the problem?
    you are right! school should have called SWAT team in!
    little homophobic scum should be happy to be alive after that! I hope they have broken all his crayons and decapitated his teddy "as an example"!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mmmpie)
    I knew when I was six, although it's beside the point. The word was once a euphemism, and now is an identity; it needn't be a slur.
    If you were to argue for this level of intervention for any namecalling, whilst I would think you were excessive, at least you'd be consistent. For five year olds, 'gay' is just another name they call someone/something who/which they dislike for whatever reason. There's no way a child (or anyone else using the meaning of 'gay' that is synonymous with 'bad', for that matter) is comparing the object of their criticism to two people of the same sex being attracted to each other. It's completely different to seeing someone who finds their own sex attractive and criticising them on that basis.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    What is "gay propaganda"? Stonewall are imposing the idea that bullying, with a focus on homophobic bullying, is wrong. They're not encouraging kids to be gay - whatever that would mean.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thesabbath)
    you're advocating the indoctrination of five year olds with homosexual propaganda because one of them used a word as a slur which they don't understand can have multiple, more adult meanings. just think about that for a moment.

    they patently are not hating on "gays" because they don't know what sexual perversion is at that age.
    it is sickening to the core that teachers at the school can be so politically correct that they will pander to a lobby group like stonewall which opportunistically seizes any such situation to spread its filth.

    if homos don't like the hijacking of the word "gay" as a byword for something that is unpleasant, they should consider how older adults feel who once used it to refer to a lively carefree innocence.
    omg just shutup man. you try and be like edgy and cool on every damn thread i swear.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mmmpie)
    An incident made school management aware of the issue of homophobia, as a result school management invited an organisation which does a lot of work on this issue to train teachers in how to deal with it.

    The objection to this is..?
    The objection is that Stonewall as an organisation are not impartial. Young children should be taught how to think, not what to think.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tufc)
    Young children should be taught how to think, not what to think.
    Name:  correct_img.jpg
Views: 56
Size:  11.8 KB
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by drbluebox)
    Watch that episode of South Park about bikers.

    The word "gay" existed before it meant homosexual, this is just a evolution of it though it may have begun as a homophobic slur.

    I know gay guys who call things gay and if anything laugh if someone calls it.

    I have a bi friend who calls things gay all the time.
    Yes.
    It just so happens that all words meaning gay with the exception of homosexual are negative.
    Homo. Fag. Queer. Nancy boy. And of course the word in question, gay.

    They are all very often used as insults.
    Do people us the following terms as insults on a regular basis?
    Man.
    White.
    Straight.

    Not really. Very rarely and in very specific circumstances perhaps.
    But in the vast majority of contexts it's okay to use 'gay' as an insult. As if there's something wrong with being gay.

    People talk about it having a dual definition, but that's not nearly the whole story. Things that have been seen as gay are then said to be bad, negative, perhaps simply abnormal. But never positive (even though the original use of the word was of course, happy). And it sends the message that being homosexual is negative. Because that's what society has done and keeps doing. It reclaims words that mean homosexual to mean something bad.

    And the only way one can logically look at that is internalised homophobia.

    Edit: And "no-homo" is one of the most obnoxious examples idiocy I've ever seen.

    Edit:
    (Original post by Eljamaispa)
    It doesn't make it any more okay to refer to things as 'gay' in a negative way just because you're gay yourself or bisexual.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Great point, having a black friend doesn't stop someone from being racist.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Yes.
    It just so happens that all words meaning gay with the exception of homosexual are negative.
    Homo. Fag. Queer. Nancy boy. And of course the word in question, gay.

    They are all very often used as insults.
    Do people us the following terms as insults on a regular basis?
    Man.
    White.
    Straight.

    Not really. Very rarely and in very specific circumstances perhaps.
    But in the vast majority of contexts it's okay to use 'gay' as an insult. As if there's something wrong with being gay.

    People talk about it having a dual definition, but that's not nearly the whole story. Things that have been seen as gay are then said to be bad, negative, perhaps simply abnormal. But never positive (even though the original use of the word was of course, happy). And it sends the message that being homosexual is negative. Because that's what society has done and keeps doing. It reclaims words that mean homosexual to mean something bad.

    And the only way one can logically look at that is internalised homophobia.

    Edit: And "no-homo" is one of the most obnoxious examples idiocy I've ever seen.

    Edit:


    Great point, having a black friend doesn't stop someone from being racist.

    This is a rare occasion, I agree with you on this.

    However whilst I think there is an issue, we have to be careful to avoid championing authoritarian legislation in response to this issue.

    i believe people have the right to be homophobic as much as we have the right to disagree with them.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thesabbath)
    you're advocating the indoctrination of five year olds with homosexual propaganda because one of them used a word as a slur which they don't understand can have multiple, more adult meanings. just think about that for a moment.

    they patently are not hating on "gays" because they don't know what sexual perversion is at that age.
    it is sickening to the core that teachers at the school can be so politically correct that they will pander to a lobby group like stonewall which opportunistically seizes any such situation to spread its filth.

    if homos don't like the hijacking of the word "gay" as a byword for something that is unpleasant, they should consider how older adults feel who once used it to refer to a lively carefree innocence.
    Obvious trollage.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thriftworks)
    This is a rare occasion, I agree with you on this.

    However whilst I think there is an issue, we have to be careful to avoid championing authoritarian legislation in response to this issue.

    i believe people have the right to be homophobic as much as we have the right to disagree with them.
    Where did the authoritarian bit come in?
    The way language and our society work there wouldn't be a way of bringing such a thing in. You can't ban a word. Literally. If anything, it'll backfire and make things worse.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Where did the authoritarian bit come in?
    The way language and our society work there wouldn't be a way of bringing such a thing in. You can't ban a word. Literally. If anything, it'll backfire and make things worse.

    You could bring in broad legislation in the public sector issuing punishment for homophobic comments etc. They have similar laws in Sweden apparently however not exactly like those I've described.

    I agree government intervention does often back fire and lead to a worse social outcome.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thriftworks)
    You could bring in broad legislation in the public sector issuing punishment for homophobic comments etc. They have similar laws in Sweden apparently however not exactly like those I've described.

    I agree government intervention does often back fire and lead to a worse social outcome.
    Education is the key, teaching people that it's okay to be gay and that using the word gay as a negative has homophobic repercussions is important.

    Edit: And government intervention has it's place. Don't try and turn this into some anti establishment anarchist thing.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    If you were to argue for this level of intervention for any namecalling, whilst I would think you were excessive, at least you'd be consistent. For five year olds, 'gay' is just another name they call someone/something who/which they dislike for whatever reason. There's no way a child (or anyone else using the meaning of 'gay' that is synonymous with 'bad', for that matter) is comparing the object of their criticism to two people of the same sex being attracted to each other. It's completely different to seeing someone who finds their own sex attractive and criticising them on that basis.
    You don't think that on a subconscious level they could possibly be internalising homophobia but not have sufficient communication levels to articulate that?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Education is the key, teaching people that it's okay to be gay and that using the word gay as a negative has homophobic repercussions is important.

    But who doesn't know that already.

    Instead we need behavioral and cultural change not through education but through advertisement campaigns etc.

    However at this moment in time there are better uses for government money, In my opinion.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thriftworks)
    But who doesn't know that already.

    Instead we need behavioral and cultural change not through education but through advertisement campaigns etc.

    However at this moment in time there are better uses for government money, In my opinion.
    It wouldn't necessarily cost much at all.
    And behavioural change can come from education.
    Cultural change will only happen when the media lets it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    It wouldn't necessarily cost much at all.
    And behavioural change can come from education.
    Cultural change will only happen when the media lets it.

    - It would cost allot, there would be an oppurtunity cost of taking kids out of normal lessons into more PSHE lessions. Also extra teaching staff, resources on the issue e.g informational texbooks

    -Yes but we've been trying education for a while now, it's expensive and one policy can only do so much.

    - The 'media' i'll assume you are talking about the producers, e.g the editors of the sun. These people do not decide what goes into the newspapers, the buyers do. We can't have cultural change without first making it unacceptable within the majority of society.

    - In my opinion the best way of tackling the issue would be some government adverts. But this would be expensive aswel so to conclude the issue is not great enough to warrant anything being done about it due to the opportunity cost of acting upon it.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Thriftworks)
    - It would cost allot, there would be an oppurtunity cost of taking kids out of normal lessons into more PSHE lessions. Also extra teaching staff, resources on the issue e.g informational texbooks
    Erm. Or it could just be a part of current PSHE lessons.
    -Yes but we've been trying education for a while now, it's expensive and one policy can only do so much.
    So what policy[ies] do you think the government should do as well?
    - The 'media' i'll assume you are talking about the producers, e.g the editors of the sun. These people do not decide what goes into the newspapers, the buyers do. We can't have cultural change without first making it unacceptable within the majority of society.
    I was thinking more in terms of songs, films, tv shows.
    - In my opinion the best way of tackling the issue would be some government adverts. But this would be expensive aswel so to conclude the issue is not great enough to warrant anything being done about it due to the opportunity cost of acting upon it.
    Adverts would simply preach to the choir.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by there's too much love)
    Erm. Or it could just be a part of current PSHE lessons.

    If you are willing to scrap other things off the sylabuse, what would you scrap? How can you justify scrapping it, we don't have unlimited time to teach kids PSHE.


    So what policy[ies] do you think the government should do as well?

    Personally I feel the government should do nothing, the money would be better spent elswhere, for example helping to fund a tax allowance to the lowest income earners in our society to stimulate local demand and get our economy moving, allowing government revenues to be greater in the future so we can fund projects such as these, I stated government mass advertising campaigns by the way.

    I was thinking more in terms of songs, films, tv shows.

    Same principle applies, if the big bang theory started calling black characters the N word all the time ratings would drop as it's socially unacceptable, thus the programme would end.

    Adverts would simply preach to the choir.
    Adverts have been stressful in raising awareness in the past. Also we haven't tried adverts for this issue yet, education has been tried and has been sucessful but not enough ground has been made, more of the same is madness.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.