Teenagers trying to figure out a rotary phone:
Showing posts with label kids. Show all posts
Showing posts with label kids. Show all posts
Thursday, July 18, 2019
Wednesday, April 24, 2019
Today in Happy Reunions
Just a reminder that good things do happen.
With thanks to commenter jixter at Joe.My.God.
Boy reunited with his lost cat after 7 months apart pic.twitter.com/t5MpjTbvS6
— Awwwww (@AwwwwCats) April 22, 2019
With thanks to commenter jixter at Joe.My.God.
Monday, December 22, 2014
Sunday, December 21, 2014
"Home for the Holidays": Something To Think About
"Home for the Holidays" is an annual CBS special directed toward encouraging the adoption and fostering of children. This year, for the first time, it features a family headed by two men.
Wednesday, September 08, 2010
Contemptible People
This week, as is so often the case, it's Focus on the Family, who support driving teenagers to suicide.
Three teens at a Minnesota school district have committed suicide over the past year after enduring anti-gay bullying. The Anoka-Hennepin School Board claims that they take bullying seriously, but they’ve refused to implement anti-bullying education programs aimed specifically at anti-gay bullying — which is precisely the issue that has led to three deaths this year. A group of anti-gay parents have formed a pressure group to support the board’s anti-gay stance, and they have the full backing of Focus On the Family:
Focus' so-called "education expert" Candy Cushman has been making the rounds to say that FoF is supports anti-bullying programs -- unless they include gay kids, because that's "sexualizing" the issue. (I don't know any gays who think about gay sex as much as the spokespersons for the Christian right. I really don't.) From the looks of things, I know more about education than Cushman does -- the difference being, I suppose, that I'm actually educated.
The Southern Poverty Law Center has taken a good look at Cushman's little campaign and come out swinging:
For the last few days, an “educational analyst” for Focus on the Family has been getting a lot of press. She’s been suggesting that anti-bullying efforts that draw attention to the harassment of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) students are part of a “gay agenda” to “sneak homosexuality lessons into classrooms.”
One can argue, as some have, that Focus on the Family is a fringe group that doesn’t represent the majority of Christians in the United States. That’s true. But it’s also true that Focus on the Family has an outsized impact on conservative thought in this country. And by using deception and spin, the group has managed this week to grab the media spotlight. The goal is apparently to make schools less safe for LGBT students and more safe for their harassers. That cannot be ignored.
That's just the first two paragraphs. Read the whole thing -- it's pretty tough, especially the part where author Maureen Costello lays out FoF's agenda. Jim Burroway has a similar take on what they're after:
The best way not to solve a problem is not to talk about the problem. And since Focus’ position is that we should not talk about the problem, at some point you have to wonder if, in some unspoken dark corner of their collective souls, they see these suicides as serving their purposes. Focus consistently portrays the “homosexual lifestyle” as synonymous with abject misery — rampant drug abuse, STDs, depression and suicide. And, coincidentally or not, they consistently oppose efforts to constructively address drug abuse, STDs, depression and suicide among gay youth. After all, if we really were to address drug abuse, STDs, depression and suicide among gay youth by actually talking about drug abuse, STDs, depression and suicide among gay youth with an eye toward identifying solutions to these problems instead of using those problems as a hammer, then drug abuse, ST’s, depression and suicide among gay youth might actually go down. And the “homosexual lifestyle” won’t seem so full of misery, will it?
Groups of professional bigots, armed with a full arsenal of lies and distortions, cost us. They cost us a lot, and it's not just LGBT youth I'm talking about here. Read this very moving post by Betty Greene Salwak about the lifelong aftermath of her father's suicide. Now imagine it's your kid.
And thank Focus on the Family.
Three teens at a Minnesota school district have committed suicide over the past year after enduring anti-gay bullying. The Anoka-Hennepin School Board claims that they take bullying seriously, but they’ve refused to implement anti-bullying education programs aimed specifically at anti-gay bullying — which is precisely the issue that has led to three deaths this year. A group of anti-gay parents have formed a pressure group to support the board’s anti-gay stance, and they have the full backing of Focus On the Family:
Focus' so-called "education expert" Candy Cushman has been making the rounds to say that FoF is supports anti-bullying programs -- unless they include gay kids, because that's "sexualizing" the issue. (I don't know any gays who think about gay sex as much as the spokespersons for the Christian right. I really don't.) From the looks of things, I know more about education than Cushman does -- the difference being, I suppose, that I'm actually educated.
The Southern Poverty Law Center has taken a good look at Cushman's little campaign and come out swinging:
For the last few days, an “educational analyst” for Focus on the Family has been getting a lot of press. She’s been suggesting that anti-bullying efforts that draw attention to the harassment of lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) students are part of a “gay agenda” to “sneak homosexuality lessons into classrooms.”
One can argue, as some have, that Focus on the Family is a fringe group that doesn’t represent the majority of Christians in the United States. That’s true. But it’s also true that Focus on the Family has an outsized impact on conservative thought in this country. And by using deception and spin, the group has managed this week to grab the media spotlight. The goal is apparently to make schools less safe for LGBT students and more safe for their harassers. That cannot be ignored.
That's just the first two paragraphs. Read the whole thing -- it's pretty tough, especially the part where author Maureen Costello lays out FoF's agenda. Jim Burroway has a similar take on what they're after:
The best way not to solve a problem is not to talk about the problem. And since Focus’ position is that we should not talk about the problem, at some point you have to wonder if, in some unspoken dark corner of their collective souls, they see these suicides as serving their purposes. Focus consistently portrays the “homosexual lifestyle” as synonymous with abject misery — rampant drug abuse, STDs, depression and suicide. And, coincidentally or not, they consistently oppose efforts to constructively address drug abuse, STDs, depression and suicide among gay youth. After all, if we really were to address drug abuse, STDs, depression and suicide among gay youth by actually talking about drug abuse, STDs, depression and suicide among gay youth with an eye toward identifying solutions to these problems instead of using those problems as a hammer, then drug abuse, ST’s, depression and suicide among gay youth might actually go down. And the “homosexual lifestyle” won’t seem so full of misery, will it?
Groups of professional bigots, armed with a full arsenal of lies and distortions, cost us. They cost us a lot, and it's not just LGBT youth I'm talking about here. Read this very moving post by Betty Greene Salwak about the lifelong aftermath of her father's suicide. Now imagine it's your kid.
And thank Focus on the Family.
Tuesday, December 30, 2008
Sex, Lies, Abstinence Pledges
Barbara O'Brien, as is so often the case, homes right in on the core of teen sex:
From reading several articles I take it the Dutch have what we would call a “permissive” attitude toward sex, and they also provide the kids with frankly explicit sex and birth control education. Middle-school age children practice putting condoms on broomsticks, for example. It seems all the parents are OK with this. Here, it would start riots.
I do not know if teens in the Netherlands are likely to begin having sex at an earlier or later age than American teens, but when they do have sex they are prepared for it. Our teens wrap themselves up in so much denial some of them probably can’t admit to themselves they have sex even while they are having it.
This hard on the heels of the news that The Netherlands, one of the most "permissive" countries in the world, has the lowest teen pregnancy rate.
Look, people have sex because it's fun. It's warm and fuzzy, it's exciting, it's pleasurable, it's intimate and rewarding. Of course, in this country we've managed to load it down so heavily with guilt and anxiety that it's a wonder anyone does it, but that just points up how nice it is: people do it anyway. Does anyone expect teenagers, who aren't much more than hormones anyway, to refrain? Doesn't it make sense, as O'Brien points out and as the Dutch do, to equip them as completely as possible for the likelihood? (And it is a likelihood, not a remote possibility -- this post starts with the most recent study showing that abstinence pledges don't stop teens from having sex -- they just seem to make it more likely that they'll either create a baby or get a disease.)
You are no doubt aware that I favor full disclosure in matters of sex (in general -- not on a personal level, because that's . . . um., personal). I have to agree with O'Brien and others on the "left" of this issue: it's going to happen, so make sure the kids are ready for it. That includes, by the way, honest discussions about the emotional fallout of sex, because there are going to be emotional consquences. Kids need to be given some handles on how to deal with them. (There's a touching scene in Little Butterfly when Nakahara says to Kojima, discussing his first sexual experience, that he wishes it had been with someone he loved. I think that's true for of everyone.)
I think it's also true that, as many commentators on this study have noted, abstinence pledges are more a means of establishing fathers' ownership of their daughters' virginity (and some of the descriptions I've read of "Chastity Balls" are really, really creepy). I'd take it one step farther: it's a way of establishing that children are property at a time when we should be preparing them to be independent.
From reading several articles I take it the Dutch have what we would call a “permissive” attitude toward sex, and they also provide the kids with frankly explicit sex and birth control education. Middle-school age children practice putting condoms on broomsticks, for example. It seems all the parents are OK with this. Here, it would start riots.
I do not know if teens in the Netherlands are likely to begin having sex at an earlier or later age than American teens, but when they do have sex they are prepared for it. Our teens wrap themselves up in so much denial some of them probably can’t admit to themselves they have sex even while they are having it.
This hard on the heels of the news that The Netherlands, one of the most "permissive" countries in the world, has the lowest teen pregnancy rate.
Look, people have sex because it's fun. It's warm and fuzzy, it's exciting, it's pleasurable, it's intimate and rewarding. Of course, in this country we've managed to load it down so heavily with guilt and anxiety that it's a wonder anyone does it, but that just points up how nice it is: people do it anyway. Does anyone expect teenagers, who aren't much more than hormones anyway, to refrain? Doesn't it make sense, as O'Brien points out and as the Dutch do, to equip them as completely as possible for the likelihood? (And it is a likelihood, not a remote possibility -- this post starts with the most recent study showing that abstinence pledges don't stop teens from having sex -- they just seem to make it more likely that they'll either create a baby or get a disease.)
You are no doubt aware that I favor full disclosure in matters of sex (in general -- not on a personal level, because that's . . . um., personal). I have to agree with O'Brien and others on the "left" of this issue: it's going to happen, so make sure the kids are ready for it. That includes, by the way, honest discussions about the emotional fallout of sex, because there are going to be emotional consquences. Kids need to be given some handles on how to deal with them. (There's a touching scene in Little Butterfly when Nakahara says to Kojima, discussing his first sexual experience, that he wishes it had been with someone he loved. I think that's true for of everyone.)
I think it's also true that, as many commentators on this study have noted, abstinence pledges are more a means of establishing fathers' ownership of their daughters' virginity (and some of the descriptions I've read of "Chastity Balls" are really, really creepy). I'd take it one step farther: it's a way of establishing that children are property at a time when we should be preparing them to be independent.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Friday Gay Blogging, Special Edition
No pictures for this one:
A group of articles I just ran across at 365gay.com on homeless gay youth in New York. I have a feeling it's not much different in other cities, except there may not be shelters available.
"These Kids Are Invisible"
"Siciliano: LGBT teen homelessness is an epidemic"
"Queer Streets: Where Are They Now?"
And this one's most important, and considering the magnitude of the problem, heartbreakingly sparse: Resources: LGBT youth shelters
Stuff like this tears me up -- damn, if I had money. . . .
A group of articles I just ran across at 365gay.com on homeless gay youth in New York. I have a feeling it's not much different in other cities, except there may not be shelters available.
"These Kids Are Invisible"
"Siciliano: LGBT teen homelessness is an epidemic"
"Queer Streets: Where Are They Now?"
And this one's most important, and considering the magnitude of the problem, heartbreakingly sparse: Resources: LGBT youth shelters
Stuff like this tears me up -- damn, if I had money. . . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)