Good idea to have rules governing day care centers, but who said they were supposed to be indoctrination centers?
The Colorado Department of Human Services has proposed that all day care centres in the state make dolls available that represent three different races.
A lengthy list of new rules – 98 pages to be exact – has just been released by the department which feature a slew of changes.
[…]
Many critics have taken to blogs and forums to voice their disbelief over the three race dolls proposal. Saelic posted: ‘What about disabled dolls, transgender dolls, deformed or elderly dolls? If they really want to include everything why not these?’ Pollysunshine said: ‘Many studies have found in the past that most children always pick up the white doll anyway and rarely notice the different races.’ Paulo84 wrote: ‘Yeah that’s right, instil political correctness or racism in them before then even get to school. So does that mean only the black kids get to play with black dolls and Asian kids Asian dolls etc?’
“What about me, a psychotic clown doll?”
Speaking of dolls…
#24 Sure, I even have a cape and cool undies for it.
How about you? You should already have fishnet stockings.
31 GregAllen said, “I’ve heard many stories by minorities about how they never saw themselves represented in their education.”
Dat so? How many majored in Black Studies? Do you know how hard the libs would come down on a school that had a White Studies program? Now the move is to force kids to study Latino History! Why not just teach history? In SanFran I believe I heard they want kids to be taught about the contribution gays have made to the city. I don’t care if the tell the kids about Harvey Milk but why do they need to know who he was blowing? It’s not like he was murdered because of his gaiety.
If they feel the need to explain he was gay then every historical figure they talk about should have his/her/its sexual preference annotated.
#30 GregAllen asked “What kind of person thinks that acknowledging racial differences is ‘indoctrination’?”
My answer would be, the same kind of person who thinks that teaching any sort of tolerance is indoctrination. Teaching that contradicts the “values” that children absorb from their parents’ behavior is often called indoctrination. Finding the right balance between allowing parents the freedom to screw their kids up with hateful values and the needs of a multicultural and diverse society to create an atmosphere of tolerance is a very tricky thing. The “domestic tranquility” stated as one of the goals of our Constitution is often on the line when finding that balance.
Freedom is probably the sharpest double-edged sword there is.
Gary==you say: “Teaching that contradicts the “values” that children absorb from their parents’ behavior is often called indoctrination.” ////
Good thought but allow me to quibble: more than “often”–thats actually the definition of indoctrination. Going to school is about this kind of socialization. Socialization: indoctrination into society.
Its the most important role of society. Not making sure a few get rich, but that the great majority are socialized into a just society.
Place the emphasis where you think it should be.
#39 pedro replied to my comment, saying “So now ‘freedom’ is forcing political correctness onto others. Some people just think with their behind.”
That’s not at all what I said, pedro. As a matter of fact, that’s the opposite of the point I was making, which was that freedom includes the right to teach your children intolerant “values,” whereas a diverse society like ours has a direct interest in creating an atmosphere of tolerance. In no way did I characterize the means by which society might foster tolerance as an exercise of “freedom.” Now that you better understand what I said, we’re in agreement (or less disagreement), right?
#40–Gary==given your response to Pedo, I read your post again. Gee==more quibbles. You have your eye on the ball, but then rhetorically you pull back as if not wanting to offend anyone by making a clear definitive statement.
Thats just fine and probably valuable to maintain your own domestic tranquility at home and at work, but you fail to avail yourself of the FREEEEEEEDOM here a DU. Uncensore yourself. Let your analytical skills soar.
To wit: assuring domestic tranquility is ALWAYS the balance to individual freedoms.
Is analogizing FREEEEEEDOM to a double edge sword the best one? If so, you should be able to state what two sides of the sword are? In most cases, FREEEEEEDOM will not be seen as a sword, but rather a balance. All our rights are aspects of FREEEEEEEDOM and they add up just like weights against their contesting interests. Analysis will get very loud and clanky otherwise.
I note only in passing that parents have had their kiddies taken away from them when their indoctrinations have been viewed as injurious. Kinda a sword right thru the heart of parenting “rights.” Would your analysis change if this “right” was viewed as a duty instead? From a sword to a spoon?
Ha, ha.
In a similar vein, here is criticism that Munchkin Ficktion Harry Potter does not include tutorials on how to have safe sex.
Advocates all over the place wanting their message to be in everything. Its a very religious orientation–speaking of that which is nothing but indoctrination?
The obligation of pop culture books is to be entertaining. The obligation of schools is to teach the basic skills thereafter allowing people to become what they wish.
http://guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/10/catherine-benett-books-propaganda-libraries
Yea, verily.
#41 bobbo, I shy away from clear, definitive statements only because shortly after making one, I often see something that I failed to take into account as a qualifying factor. I’m not fond of looking like an idiot.
We all love freedom so very, very much, right up until we see someone else misusing theirs to the detriment of someone we care about (especially ourselves), or society in general. It’s always important to keep reminding people that their political disagreements are seldom about absolute principles and mostly about where the balancing point between freedom and society’s interests should be.
A perfect illustration of freedom’s frequent tensions with society is the case of the religious belief that God is the healer of first and last resort. How far should society go to restrict the religious freedom of a parent and their right to deny their child earthly medical care? That’s quite a dilemma for devoutly religious freedom-lovers, but in recent years we’ve seen true believers increasingly willing to sacrifice religious freedom in order to protect the most vulnerable from some of religious freedom’s worst consequences, often torturing their own logic to arrive at that compromise, but getting there nonetheless.
I have this strange belief that pointing out the compromises that people have already made and getting them to acknowledge those compromises will possibly make those people more open to compromise in the future. The description “uncompromising” isn’t the badge of courage some people seem to think it is. Compromise was a hallmark of an extremely important constitutional convention many years ago, and compromise remains just as important today.
Nowadays, some people see the interests of our society’s domestic tranquility being served by taking active measures to foster tolerance of diversity, whether it has to do with cultures or sexual orientation. Unfortunately, in many households this means that children are exposed to ideas in direct conflict from what they see displayed at home, which merely serves to highlight its potential benefit.
Gary–you say: “I shy away from clear, definitive statements only because shortly after making one, I often see something that I failed to take into account as a qualifying factor. I’m not fond of looking like an idiot.” /// Damn boy–you shouldn’t set yourself up like that.
Once again your eye is on the ball. But once again you are indeed shying away from the center, aiming just off center you indeed miss the mark.
Why don’t you parse the ABSOLUTE language I criticized you with? Its framing, balance, definition. And don’t quibble. Only idiots will go for the 1% inapplicable, but we should proudly declare for the 99%. ((Gee, those numbers appear elsewhere in my commentary===and they still fit. Yea for consistency!!!! Ha, ha.))
Absolute/Qualifying, Uncompromising/flexible==doesn’t mean a thing up in the clear blue sky. Bring these issues down to earth and be specific. Define your values. State them. Defend them.
Take fostering of diversity. ALWAYS at odds with what “might be” taught at home. Only a small twist away from the absolute value as to what “might be” the aberrant 1% taught at home. Is that twist more than rhetoric? You can make it so.
Values/values in conflict. What “model” can possibly work/work best when encountering mild conflict on up to extreme? What does “melting pot” mean? What values should be allowed to vary, and which should be uniform?
We agree its something to think about.
#21 Gee you are so unobservant. Sure, most of us think this is more Nanny state sponsored stupidity.
Most of us have said enough it should be obvious we don’t care what race the dolls the kids play with happen to belong to other than it computes to get something the kids and their parents like and this is just more stupid rules that nobody needs.
# 46 deowll said,”Most of us have said enough it should be obvious we don’t care what race the dolls [are] … this is just more stupid rules that nobody needs.”
Huzzah. Huzzah!
Succinctly said and what I tried to imply in far more verbiage above.
One fact of life is that every time you tried to include someone, two more someones will demand inclusion.
Here’s an idea, on the first day of school, each child must bring a doll of their preference. Except the boys, of course, who will bring toy guns…
-sigh- I am so glad my progeny have achieved majority and that there is no more active diving in my gene pool. Just some recreational swimming.
Well, ok, the brown shirts keep marching, it falls to me to put the “pro” in progressive:
“we don’t care what race the dolls [are] … this is just more stupid rules that nobody needs.”
//// Thats right. Just because all the dolls are white is just…….you know……the way things are. The natural order of things. The way they always have been and always should be.
Rather insensitive in fact for all these complainers to want to change things that are good enough/just the way they were when I was a kid/just the way the always should be. If all these trouble makers don’t like it, why they should just go back to where ever they came from. After all, this is America–home of the free, and white dolls.
I like Animby’s idea of bringing dolls from home. And you know, if you are too poor to have your own spare doll, then you can always borrow one of the white ones we have in excess.
And again, while sage Animby came close, no one has really mentioned the boy in the caption playing with Barbie—unless that was all assumed in the gay banter. I guess gay boys play with female dolls? I thought it was just the opposite, but don’t really know.
I’d be curious what the “rules” say about boys toys. I think the discussion of dolls would probably fade away that quickly.
Ha, ha. What a bunch of dolts.
Fuck the pedro doll. Hell, half the Sixth Fleet can’t be all wrong. Or his donkey.
#48 Bobbette: That boy ain’t queer. He’s practicing to be a serial killer. Look how he’s squeezing the life outta that blonde bimbo. Look at that grim, murderous look on his face. A moment later he probably snapped off her arm to use as a toothpick after he ate her boobs.
And some fava beans.
>> Gary, the dangerous infidel
>>>> #30 GregAllen asked “What kind of person thinks that acknowledging racial differences is ‘indoctrination’?”
>> My answer would be, the same kind of person who thinks that teaching any sort of tolerance is indoctrination.
I work in the schools and I don’t teach tolerance. I enforce it!
Public schools have a legal responsibility to provide equal education to all students. A hostile learning environment for some students is a violation of that.
So, we don’t let students curse or use racial or sexual insults.
This is not “indoctrination” — it is or legal duty.
The closest I come to teaching tolerance, is that I role model it.
>> Animby said, on July 10th, 2011 at 10:23 am
>> Dat so? How many majored in Black Studies?
No, I actually talk to minorities. More importantly, I listen to them.
I have lost track of how many stories I’ve heard about people not seeing themselves reflected in their education.
>> Do you know how hard the libs would come down on a school that had a White Studies program?
You honestly don’t get-it, do you? Western Civ is a white studies program. White males, to be specific.
But to be specific, we liberals aren’t against white studies. We are against white supremacists.
>> pedro said,
>> So, we should create different dolls to showcase gay diversity. There should be the flamboyant gay, the serious gay, the in-between gay, the dike,
Of course, you are being ridiculous. Funny stuff, that.
BUT, the principle is dead serious — the education we give our kids should be as diverse as America and humanity itself.
It shouldn’t be white, straight and dominated by males. Gay and lesbian students should be tough the _truth_ that gays and lesbians are valuable members of society.
As for dolls specifically, it’s inappropriate to sexual them. But it’s perfectly appropriate to stop any teasing of a boy who wants to play with dolls instead of trucks. Required, actually.
On a careful review, that kid does look creepy. Looks like he is being forced to “play” with a doll when he’d rather be putting firecrackers up a frogs butt.
Interesting thing about “enforcing” diversity. At the margin, no one knows what it means or what the effects might be.
Makes me wonder if schools really should be enforcing anything except the 3-R’s and let society socialize the kiddies?
Pro’s and Con’s to all we do.
Yea, verily.
#53 GregAllen said, “gays and lesbians are valuable members of society”
No, GregAllen, it is YOU who just “don’t get it.” PEOPLE are valuable members of society. NOT their sexual orientation. That’s where you (like most liberals) screw up. You classify people, put them into boxes then on display. You think you’re liberating them but you’re, in fact, discriminating. Homosexuality should be accepted by society. Same sex marriages should be inflicted on them just as they are on us. I would see a true end to discrimination not your “see how wonderful we are to the poor queers” reverse discrim libs like to push.
Ahhh Nimby==gosh you were going so well for the first 3 sentences, then you hung a right and went all partisan on the bestest christian in our group. So mean spirited–you must be a republican. Ha, ha.
At least you aren’t saying the typical libs want to outlaw a human condition rather than just put the mark of Cain upon them. And good Doctor Bachman is willing to suffer by taking Tax Funded MediCare dollars to put these liberal targets thru his medical cure–no religion involved. Ha, ha.
Yes, lots of yuks. Quite a strong statement when sticking with the facts. Then we tumble off the balance beam into the pit of cheap one shots. I know where I am more comfortable.
Bobbo – I had one cheap shot last night. Helped me sleep.
About a centiury and a hlaf ago, I worked on am ambulance. I was stationed at a remote location and my partner was gay. I was young and naive and, truthfully, disgusted by him. But, over the months of getting to know him, his friends and his beautiful girlfriend (she was lesbian – they used each other as cover for the families) I grew to accept them and their ilk for what they are: people.
I do not care for people who feel it necessary to put their sexuality on display prancing it about like Lippizan horses. Or their religion, for that matter. A “good christian”? That’s just as mythological as a good satyr and much more dangerous.
Animby–I went thru a spell of having a cheap shot to help me sleep. Got up to a six pack and was never hungry for breakfast. We choose our own poisons.
About putting one’s sexuality, religion, or any other “private” thing on display was a thought I almost posted to–then I got lost in how to balance it with Dallas who has morphed somewhat into the Gay with Attitude and Proud of It. Its funny at times and I hope it is polishing some positive aspect of his multi-layered complex personality/super ego.
We are all stumbling, changing course, stumbling some more==unless we are stuck in a rut. Ha, ha.
I recall in grammar school the little girl who sat behind me got all pissed off at me when she told me she was Jewish and I said so what? I guess she was used to being treated more as a special little princess? Funny what we get proud of and then upset by. Usually it has nothing to do with anything that takes effort.
Amusing that.
In related news, In Colo you made need different dolls, but in Calif you still can’t “be” gay or even curious. Talk about missing your “teaching moment.”
Ha, ha. The religious are so retarded.
http://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2011/04/27/christian-school-expels-girl-over-sexuality/
#60 Bobbo – Ahhh, evangelical christians. Barrel of laughs.
Possibly the most shocking point of the story was the last sentence: “The California Supreme Court has ruled in 2009 that private schools are not obligated to follow California’s civil rights laws.”