The continued reference to Mary Cheney by the Dems

I keep talking about the raison d'etre of the show and how an episode with two moms totally fits, here's their actual "program summary"

But Nancy Carlsson-Paige, a professor of education at Lesley University in Cambridge, Mass., who in the past has been a consultant for WGBH, said keeping Emma and her brothers out of sight was harmful. "Attitudes or ideas of stereotype and bias develop in kids' minds in part from images they see in books and media," she said. "There's a kind of stereotyping by omission that occurs. We form our categories about families by images we've seen. It is important for children to see their own lives and subcultures reflected to feel they are part of society."

What I will say without qualification is that I am perfectly happy to continue to call actual bigots on their bigotry.

What on earth does whether something has been eradicated from the church have to do with anything? Why are you (of all people!) looking to the church for guidance on whether a practice is acceptable or not?

Why is it OK to oppose homosexuality?

Bill wrote:

I admire the certainty of your conviction but that is no measure of accuracy. Your desire to enlighten the ignorant masses is no different the Christians, the Muslims or anyone else's. To maintain a happy medium, none of your messages should be subliminally sent to preschoolers.

Which messages? Love thy neighbor? Don't steal? Share? Listen?

In another fine choice of words, you have made educational TV about "subliminal messages." Educational TV is about educational TV!! Is it subliminal to have a handicapped cast member on Barney to encourage acceptance of those with disabilities? I guess you could say so. Is it nefarious? Hardly!

So, yes, educational TV is teaching, along with the importance of sharing and messages of acceptance of disabled people, an acceptance of families with two moms. This isn't some sneaky thing. It's a stated purpose of the show, exposing kids to various lifestyles and cultures. It's EDUCATIONAL.

There is NO way to strip TV of any messages at all, subliminal or not, the only thing to do is decide whether the message is ACCEPTABLE. And that's what we're discussing here. Is the message that some kids have two moms and that's OK acceptable or not?

I say yes. You seem to say no. Why?

And if you're not saying no, what on earth are you on about?

Quote:

Thus far, it appears to be a majority of Americans who disagree with your take, and right or wrong in your opinion or mine, that is the bottom line.

What does THAT mean? You've seen some polls about "Postcards"? Care to share? More people are against gay marriage than not? That's pretty narrow compared to the scope of what we've been talking about. If more people approve of a prejudice than disapprove, we should just leave well enough alone? Tell that to Martin Luther King.

Here you are again defending the practice of sending subliminal messages, by stating the messages themselves are good ones. The public's collective morality is in full agreement with you that acceptance of disabilities is a positive message to subliminally promote… hence, there are no complaints about it. That is what's missing in the two mom's example.

No, you should fight it tooth and nail… but not by superimposing your believes on someone else's children. Rightness doesn't justify righteousness in this venue. Some theist's believe that all who don't believe in Jesus will suffer eternal damnation. What better justification could there be than that for them to convince your children

I suspect there are a good many parents who feel they can rely on the premise that anything PBS has to offer will be good for their children. They like the fact that PBS won't show drugs, violence, sex or get caught up in political bickering… or promote deviant lifestyles of any kind (their definition for the purpose of example). I can tell you PBS would not have gone there when I was a kid. So, some parents may see this deviation from the status quo as highly offensive. For the first time (perhaps) they feel they have to worry about what messages PBS is trying to send their kids. (The fact that you disagree with their objection shouldn't prevent you from understanding it. Think smoking-> there was a time it was promoted as healthy).

Here's a look back at some of the significant ways Sesame Street encouraged diversity in 31 years and counting:

1969- Sesame Street debuts with the first fully racially integrated cast, which includes African American actors in lead roles.

1971- Maria and Luis bring bilingual (Spanish) education to their Fix-It shop.

1974- Linda Bove from the National Theater of the Deaf joins the show and teaches signing. She remains on the show today and holds the longest-running lead role by a deaf person in the history of television.

1975- Children with special needs appear on the show.

1982- Big Bird visits China.

1990- The season's focus is race relations. Specific episodes highlight white and African American characters responding positively to cultural and physical differences.

1991- Rosita, the first bilingual Muppet from Mexico, is introduced. She helps teach viewers Spanish and about her Mexican culture.

1992- Sesame Street goes on location to visit Navajo, Cherokee, and Iroquois Native Americans. Children also learn about Puerto Rican, Mexican, and Cuban traditions.

1993- A spunky female Muppet named Zoe joins the cast and teaches kids about girl power! Children learn about Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, and Korean cultures in America. Segments discourage "exclusionary behavior" such as name-calling.

1994- Tarah Lynne Schaeffer joins the cast. Wheelchair-bound Tarah proves over and over again that all kids like to play, laugh, learn, and have fun! Her spunky presence has helped children learn about the needs (and strengths!) of children with disabilities.

Bill, sorry, I appreciate the tone and thoughtfulness of this last one but it doesn't hold up. If ignorance is leading to prejudice and varieties of discrimination, educating children is one of the best possible ways to eradicate that ignorance.

If it helps you to understand it, yes, I think it was inappropriate to fight the good fight of interracial marriage in the minds of a 3 year olds as well. Teach yours what appropriate, but don't you dare to presume that you have a right to overrule the majority consensus on morality and teach mine your radical views. However right you may be, this approach remains wrong. That is simply not the appropriate venue to battle a moral dilemma that adults can't even agree on. Both sides are equally entitled to their outrage when it's used as such... and therefore the issue can (should?) be able to be avoided by the television station without offending anyone. Choosing not to air the episode is a non position that isn't necessarily indicative of a yay or a nay to the moral dilemma. Choosing to air it is a defacto endorsement.

The problem with this approach is the goose/gander thing. You may think it appropriate to fight ignorance through the kids, but then the radical Christian right, as fully convinced of the right of their views as you are in your views, would have full license to start putting out information on the public airways showing how the gay lifestyle is against God's will, leads to terrible diseases, and is harmful to society, no matter how irrational or irresponsible that might be. Would you want your young children to get that in their morning cartoons? Or would you want them to be educated on anything that you consider irrational, irresponsible, or just not appropriate for the age completely apart from the gay issue?

For some conservative groups, having families with same-sex parents feel part of society is precisely the danger they want to combat.

"My big concern is there's an effort in the gay activist movement to indoctrinate kids under the banner of tolerance and diversity to give misleading and inaccurate information about homosexuality," said Bill Maier, child and family psychologist in residence at Focus on the Family, the Christian organization that recently criticized SpongeBob's creator for allowing the character to be used in a what it called a "pro-homosexual video." The video's creator said it was intended to teach children about multiculturalism.

Experts say there is no scientific evidence that children raised by gay couples fare any worse than those raised in more traditional households.

Bill, sorry, I appreciate the tone and thoughtfulness of this last one but it doesn't hold up. If ignorance is leading to prejudice and varieties of discrimination, educating children is one of the best possible ways to eradicate that ignorance. (Though I will say again that "Postcards" isn't actually aimed at preschoolers.)

The LACK of exposure has a lot to do with creating the problem.

If you think that homosexuality is wrong or maybe wrong, what you say makes sense. Dlowan put that really nicely, about how of course we all have prejudices, that's not actually that big of a deal. If you maintain that you think there is nothing wrong with homosexuality, though, it doesn't make sense.

Quote:

Here you are again defending the practice of sending subliminal messages, by stating the messages themselves are good ones. The public's collective morality is in full agreement with you that acceptance of disabilities is a positive message to subliminally promote… hence, there are no complaints about it. That is what's missing in the two mom's example.

Hee hee! You really like that "subliminal messages" thing, doncha? What is educational TV, then? What is happening with the disabled cast member on Barney? What's bad about it?

Oh, you go ahead and answer right there by saying there are no complaints about that. OK, good, so you don't have problems with all "subliminal messages", just some. ;-) So we're back to, some messages are OK, some are not. Why is "some kids have two moms" not OK?

I liked Blatham's civil duty comment. If I think something is wrong -- like opposition to homosexuality -- I will not sit around and wait for the public's collective morality to catch up to it. I want to do something proactive, if only arguing the subject on a message board and writing to my local PBS station.

One more thing I wanted to address, from a previous post of yours about the show raising uncomfortable questions or whatever:

The way I see it, there are only two options. In option one, the kid doesn't know about "how babies are made" sex, and "because they love each other" covers all of the possible questions. There isn't "but how do two ladies make babies?" or whatever because they don't know how a man and a woman make babies. Again, as squinney says, you assume too much in what a three-year old (to use your preferred age) would think while watching. "Mmm, pancakes!" is by far the most likely.

In option two, the kid knows about "how babies are made" sex.

I have no idea if sozlet will turn out to be lesbian or not. However, I'm probably not going to find out for sure for a long time yet, and I'd much prefer to give her an upbringing in which she feels that acceptable. It's kind of like the "first they came for the ___, and I wasn't an ___" saying. I wouldn't want to have to wait to find out that my own daughter is a lesbian to suddenly start wanting to make the world better for lesbians -- that would be hypocritical.

Bill wrote:

No, you should fight it tooth and nail… but not by superimposing your believes on someone else's children. Rightness doesn't justify righteousness in this venue. Some theist's believe that all who don't believe in Jesus will suffer eternal damnation. What better justification could there be than that for them to convince your children

You and word choice. "Superimpose" -- sigh. Nobody's forcing anyone to watch. Just like nobody forced us to watch the Orthodix Jew episode of "Postcards". Or the Mormon episode (which I just remembered.) In both of those episodes, the families were open, friendly, happy people, who obviously appreciated their faith. It could have led to all kinds of questions from sozlet that might be awkward to answer -- but a) it didn't ("oooh, sledding!") and b) if it did, that would mean she was ready to ask those questions. If she's ready to ask them, I'm ready to answer. That's how parenting goes.

Sorry, you have to establish that there's something wrong with homosexuality before you can hold that "Postcards" is doing anything but carrying on this proud tradition. (Do you think Sesame Street shouldn't have done these things, most of the big ones in 1969-1975, back when we were little kids?)

Continuing with your circular argument; the reader must accept your belief that there's nothing wrong with being homosexual... in order to recognize this problem. It is quite apparent that you are utterly incapable of recognizing the possibility that you are wrong about that. While I respect the conviction, it makes it impossible to have a rational discussion with you about dissenting views. I'm reminded of the opposing sides on abortion. Both sides have valid points but the crazies can only see their side. (Of course a woman should have a right to choose what happens to her body, but that doesn't mean a human life isn't being extinguished.) You have that kind of tunnel vision when addressing this issue.