Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If my son told me that it really bothered him and that he didn't want to attend that class anymore because of that teacher, then I'd have to do something about it. My son already doesn't want to be there in the first place, so I don't need one more reason for him to not attend class. If my son didn't have a problem with it at all and the teacher had control over the classroom and had the students attention and respect, then I wouldn't have a problem with it.
There's this person who owns it's own demolition company and we're not sure what to think. It looks like he had breast implants and he wears women's clothes, but he also smokes a big cigar, operates heavy demolition equipment and doesn't shave his beard very often. The women's clothes that he wears always shows off his huge tattooed covered biceps. His business is down the road from my in-laws in KY. So when my son goes to see his grandparents, he always comes back with some pretty interesting stories that will make you scratch your head. IMO, if you're going to go that far and get breast implants, then go all the way and act like a lady! Is it asking to much to shave your darn beard?
A male teacher at school in the classroom wearing a dress in front of my kid? Yes, I would mind. Too disruptive and distracting not to mention the undesirable element of the bizarre.
I think 12 year olds find "oddities" funny precisely because they've been indoctrinated to believe that anything different than some arbitrary "norm" is an oddity deserving of ridicule and shaming. Bigotry towards and hatred of differences isn't natural - it's learned.
It may come as a surprise to you, but there are a great many 12 year olds and teens who want to do nothing more than fit in and conform. The very thought of being different to attract attention to themself would be something like the biggest public embarrassment and many would prefer to melt into the wallpaper and disappear than show off or be seen as different. Not all kids and teens love the "oddities" that stand out and make a big showy public statement. That for many of them would be considered very weird. Kids like that are the majority.
Behaviors and actions that harm - or disrespect, or inconvenience - others (and yourself) are wholly and completely unacceptable. I try my hardest to live by the golden rule, and that's what I'd teach to anyone in my charge. That and to be willing to openly and honestly talk to others since everyone is different and sees things differently. I would encourage harmless eccentricities that make my children happy - even if they fly in the face of what others perceive as societal "norms."
I can't for the life of me find the harm in a man wearing a dress or otherwise exhibiting a characteristic somebody else might consider feminine. If you know of one, I'd love to discuss it (I asked this question point blank already in this thread of the social conservatives - nobody has yet to respond)
Thank you for your thoughtful and direct response.
One question I still have is who decides what is what is disrespectful, inconvenient or harmful to others?
I would argue that divorce is extremely harmful to children since the roll model for responsible male behavior is typically replaced by a new boyfriend, or perhaps even a girlfriend, who has no previous relationship with the child, no biological connection and could never love him or her to the degree of the true biological father. The child will have less interest in pleasing mommy's new love interest than his or her real dad and for that reason will almost always grow to become less of a person than they would otherwise be. The stats on divorced kids are all over the Internet, so you'll forgive me if I don't bother to link to them.
I personally believe the relationship between a biological parent and a child cannot be reproduced by social engineering, or mommy's new preference in men (or perhaps women), and that attempting to do so is harmful to children. I further believe the social engineers would build more and greater superstructures around the divided family with the intent of diminishing the impact of an absent father. While their goals are admirable, they fail to do the most important thing which is to protect and promote that special and irreplaceable relationship between father and biological child.
Teaching young people that the biological relationship between parents and children is unique and irreplaceable and must be respected and is essential to raising children who become responsible parents. A functional definition of normal which includes two parents, each with a biological connection to the child they are raising, is essential for raising happy, healthy and well-adjusted kids. Normalizing that which deviates from this model encourages absentee fatherism and family division.
While cross-dressing by itself doesn't do harm, it fosters disregard for what should be the norm, and throwing away the concept of normal has never added to the unity, health and stability to the family or taught young people what is expected of them.
Thank you for your thoughtful and direct response.
One question I still have is who decides what is what is disrespectful, inconvenient or harmful to others?
I would argue that divorce is extremely harmful to children since the roll model for responsible male behavior is typically replaced by a new boyfriend, or perhaps even a girlfriend, who has no previous relationship with the child, no biological connection and could never love him or her to the degree of the true biological father. The child will have less interest in pleasing mommy's new love interest than his or her real dad and for that reason will almost always grow to become less of a person than they would otherwise be. The stats on divorced kids are all over the Internet, so you'll forgive me if I don't bother to link to them.
I personally believe the relationship between a biological parent and a child cannot be reproduced by social engineering, or mommy's new preference in men (or perhaps women), and that attempting to do so is harmful to children. I further believe the social engineers would build more and greater superstructures around the divided family with the intent of diminishing the impact of an absent father. While their goals are admirable, they fail to do the most important thing which is to protect and promote that special and irreplaceable relationship between father and biological child.
Teaching young people that the biological relationship between parents and children is unique and irreplaceable and must be respected and is essential to raising children who become responsible parents. A functional definition of normal which includes two parents, each with a biological connection to the child they are raising, is essential for raising happy, healthy and well-adjusted kids. Normalizing that which deviates from this model encourages absentee fatherism and family division.
While cross-dressing by itself doesn't do harm, it fosters disregard for what should be the norm, and throwing away the concept of normal has never added to the unity, health and stability to the family or taught young people what is expected of them.
Behaviors and actions that harm - or disrespect, or inconvenience - others (and yourself) are wholly and completely unacceptable. I try my hardest to live by the golden rule, and that's what I'd teach to anyone in my charge. That and to be willing to openly and honestly talk to others since everyone is different and sees things differently. I would encourage harmless eccentricities that make my children happy - even if they fly in the face of what others perceive as societal "norms."
I can't for the life of me find the harm in a man wearing a dress or otherwise exhibiting a characteristic somebody else might consider feminine. If you know of one, I'd love to discuss it (I asked this question point blank already in this thread of the social conservatives - nobody has yet to respond)
Many times teachers are role models for students. I think most of us have a favorite teacher or two. For some students who don't have a stable home life their favorite teacher becomes a role model.
It's one thing to be a teacher and exhibit moral standards that society wants children to emulate and develop by their actions and image. It's entirely another when the teacher is uses their image to mold and shape the students image of gender/society when the teacher imparts their views on that impressionable child without the parent's consent. That consent is considered automatic when the teacher is in the classroom because the teacher is authorized by the state to teach children while living their life according to the moral standard society finds acceptable.
If the male teacher wants to wear a dress in private, have at it.
In the classroom, the teacher must exhibit the moral standard that greater society finds acceptable when dealing with students in primary and secondary school.
Such vulgarity and judgemental hatred. Is that how a real man acts?
No. A man just acts like his gender. You DO understand that there's a reason men act a certain way and women act a certain way right? There's a lot more to it than "supressed societal norms imposed on us at birth." This crap is getting ridiculous. What's wrong with this country?
It may come as a surprise to you, but there are a great many 12 year olds and teens who want to do nothing more than fit in and conform. The very thought of being different to attract attention to themself would be something like the biggest public embarrassment and many would prefer to melt into the wallpaper and disappear than show off or be seen as different. Not all kids and teens love the "oddities" that stand out and make a big showy public statement. That for many of them would be considered very weird. Kids like that are the majority.
This is often a result of parental conditioning. When I was deaf-blind I found that most kids were naturally curious and accepting of the fact I was different. When they called me a freak or made mean-spiritied Helen Keller jokes, it was often because their parents were standing right behind them egging them on to do that. Children are naturally accepting. Children who aren't have often already been largely affected by their intolerant parents.
Teaching young people that the biological relationship between parents and children is unique and irreplaceable and must be respected and is essential to raising children who become responsible parents. A functional definition of normal which includes two parents, each with a biological connection to the child they are raising, is essential for raising happy, healthy and well-adjusted kids. Normalizing that which deviates from this model encourages absentee fatherism and family division.
I completely agree with you that children need to learn that a healthy child-parent relationship is irreplaceable and unique. I don't understand the requirement for both parents to be biological, though. Are you opposed to adoption? I realize that adoptive families deviate from the norm but adoptive parents are equally as capable of raising happy, healthy, and well-adjusted kids. I don't want to sound mean; I'm just trying to understand your logic.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
