nimh, I agree. There was a statistic in the paper just today that 65% of Americans believe "the father is the head of the household and should be obeyed" -- point being that Americans tend to believe that way about their government and their workplaces too. There isn't a strong belief that society cares, or that it's important to have a strong society in order to have a strong family.
Quote:If they are at grave danger, isnt it our common responsibility to warn them? "It takes a village" to raise a kid and all that - to erect a wall of privacy around the nuclear family, in that respect, seems irrepsonsible to me, because children are not for parents to treat whatever way they see fit -
This is so very true. At the same time, I believe Montana has the best interest of her son in mind, and is able and willing to provide him with appropriate and applicable education. I also believe she has the right to be informed about what the school intends to present to the kids on this topic. (My daughter's school sent home a packet about it before the class began.) But Montana's son is going to be a young adult socializing with others of his age group (and above and below). HE will have the knowledge he needs, but will the others?
Reminds me of a friend who wouldn't vote for ANY school levy, because he intended to school his own children in Catholic school. OK fine, I said, but who are they going to marry? Who's going to be their boss at work? ALL our young people need the best education, on all fronts, that we can provide them! (Vouchers, anyone?)
au1929 wrote:Montana
Yes I agree parents consent should be required. And IMO if the parent has any sense at all they should give it. Most teenagers of today if they are socially active are more than likely sexually active. Whether you believe it or not it is a fact. With that in mind they should be as prepared as possible. Would you send your child out in a snowstorm without being properly dressed?
I would never send my child out in a snowstorm without being properly dressed, but I would also never send him out into the world without being properly educated either. If consent was recieved from every parent before teaching them about sex, then it wouldn't be an issue with me at all. We parents that do take full responsability shouldn't be robbed of our rights simply because some parents could care less, and that's all I'm saying.
Hooray for Montana! And here's to well-dressed, well-educated children of all ages. May they all be blessed with knowledge and common sense!
Montana wrote:If the parent refuses to teach the child and refuses consent I still think it should be the parents choice. People are losing more and more of their rights every day and if we allow it to continue, parents will lose all their rights.
That's one of the main clues to the difference between USA and European countries, especially here Germany:
our children got constitutional rights as well, e.g. for getting education.
nimh
I could write a book about the 8 longest years of my life when my rights were seriously violated by the schools and social services. I was accused of medical neglect for refusing to drug my son with ritalin and only people who have experienced the abuse I took from the system for so many years can appreciate the pure hell of it all. If you don't agree with everything the schools dish out they just simply pick up that phone, call social services and you're haunted until you've done what your told. I could go on and on as I have on several other threads, but I left the country over 3 years ago and I have to find a way to put it behind me, so in all honesty I should have stayed away from this question for my own peace of mind. I found my freedom and I'm happy, so carry on ;-)
Montana, I sincerely believe that the attention you give your child is admirable. Most parents have forgotten their responsibility, and they have lost all interest in taking responsbility even for themselves. You are the exceptional parent, and you have my admiration and respect. It's too bad more parents do not spend the time with their children to teach them not only about sex but about ethics, being a good citizen, and about 'fair play.' Not in the least which is to take responsibility for their own mistakes. I totally agree with your expectations as a parent that the school get permission before they teach sex education to their children. On the other side of the coin, however, is that not all parents do good by their children. That's the reason why the government provides child protective services from parents who would harm their own children. We just need to find that balance between good parenting and bad parenting. Sex education is but a small portion of the overall concerns of the majority. c.i.
CI
Thank you sincerely for your kind words and I do hear what you're say, but I still feel that things have gotten out of hand. As much as ninh makes a good point in saying that our children don't belong to us, they don't belong to the government either and I think it's just awful that good parents lose their rights because of bad parents :-(
This question really hits home and I really should have kept my distance since there is a book long explaination behind my thoughts.
au
I apologize for taking up so much of your thread. That was not my intention.
Re: Schools stumble over sex education
au1929 wrote: What do you think should be taught?? Total abstinence or comprehensive sex education
Comprehensive sex education! More generally, I want schools to teach, not to indoctrinate. This difference is important to me because I think schools should inform their pupils about the biology and the culture of sex, lay out the options available and the tradeoffs involved, and then let them make their own decisions. Schools should try not to indoctrinate their pupils in favor of, or against, any particular way of dealing with their sexuality. This is a very personal choice -- I actually find it hard to imagine
any issue that's more personal than sex -- and every pupil has to make it for herself.
The school's responsibility is that pupils can make an informed choice. It is not responsible for what that choice turns out to be.
Montana
I'm sure you that, as Wy put it, "you have the best interest of your son in mind, and are able and willing to provide him with appropriate and applicable education". I havent seen the threads in which you told your story, but in any case, I didnt intend to refer your personal case or behavior in any way! I mean, I wouldnt want the school or the government to enforce me to accept Ritalin treatment for my child, either - its a controversial enough medicine as it is. So I can see the "border" issue. All I was saying is that the sex education thing, in my mind, falls on the other side of the border ...
The "things that are (too) personal" argument that you suggest is an incredibly subjective one, it's not like any of us will ever agree on which things are 'of course' too personal, and which are not! The "people dont have sex in public" argument is void, for example - people dont shoot up in public either, but you still would want the school to educate your kids against the dangers of drugs, no? Thats why I came with the traffic safety / drunk driving / drinking vectors - when and where does that issue, for example, become 'personal'?
But I dont mean to drag you into some discussion you've already "had", of course! Though I was quoting you, the post was of course to make a general point.
And that is, basically, that I have to take issue (strongly) with, say, the "If the parent refuses to teach the child and refuses consent I still think it should be the parents choice" line. I can see how it is inspired by a sense that parents "are losing more and more of their rights every day", but this is a very good example of where the "rights" of two people clash - the right of the parent to decide how to raise his child, and the right of the child to have an education. (I dont know how it is there, but here the right to education is guaranteed to the age of 16. The right to education is also in the international convention on childrens rights, I believe). To say that its OK, basically, for a parent to do whatever (s)he wants with his/her child, including depriving him of any education (talking "refusing to teach the chld" rather than home schooling, of course) - is to suggest the child doesnt have any rights!
(There I go again with my exclamation marks ;-)
Walter Hinteler wrote:That's one of the main clues to the difference between USA and European countries, especially here Germany: our children got constitutional rights as well, e.g. for getting education.
You're bragging, Walter! The reality is that German children have a right to schooling. Whether or not the schooling also provides an education is an entirely different question ...
You may be right re education, but since the USA are the only country worldwide besides Somalia, which didn't even sign the UN-convention of rights of children ...
(Germany signed and ratified it. Thus, there is -officially- a status of basic law for this!)
nimh wrote: And that is, basically, that I have to take issue (strongly) with, say, the "If the parent refuses to teach the child and refuses consent I still think it should be the parents choice" line.
I know montana can speak for herself, but I'm going to defend her anyway. As I understand her, she is making two independent points. Point 1: Children schould receive a comprehensive sexual education, and parents who prohibit this are making a big mistake. Point 2: When in doubt, what the parents want their children to learn takes precedence over what the school wants children to learn -- mistaken or not.
We all agree about point 1. But you, nimh, "take issue (strongly)" with her second point, implying that you think schools are less likely to make stupid educational choices than parents are. What is your reason for believing that? As for myself, I'm inclined to agree with Gezzy, because parents have a much larger stake in their children's education than teachers do, and because I think the final decision should be made by whoever has the strongest incentive to get it right.
-- Thomas
Thomas, I agree. It's similar to people who let others manage their money - a big mistake. There is nobody more interested in preserving what you have than yourself. MOney managers are only interested in getting their commissions and fees. People need to learn how to take on responsibility for the important things in their lives. Study it, learn it, and share it with your children. c.i.
I just finished reading the whole CSM article AU posted, and I have a few questions about it to the Americans in this thread.
The Christian Science Monitor wrote:
On the other side are those who favor what is called "comprehensive" sex education. This approach may include teaching students that abstinence outside marriage is either one option or perhaps even the best course, but this message is followed up with practical information about sex. Generally this focuses on how contraceptives work, where to get them, and why they are important.
Would you say this is a fair characterization of the comprehensive sex education approach? Based on hearsay from my American friends, I had always thought this approach focuses on teaching facts, without "teaching" any particular sexual way of life.
The Christian Science Monitor wrote: But at the same time, he says, those who favor comprehensive sex ed often fail to distinguish between the needs of a 12-year-old and those of a 17-year-old. They fail to appreciate that, "beyond some kind of moral issue, having sex too early can be horribly damaging to young people," he says.
Throughout my online community life, I have repeatedly heard this assertion from opponents of comprehensive sex education. It strikes me as something people should be able to test empirically. Among a group of young grown-ups, find out who had early sex and who hadn't, then find out who suffered "horrible damage" and who didn't. Finally, check the correlation to see whether people who had early sex are more likely to suffer "horrible damage". Does anyone know a statistically sound study along these lines? If so, what was the outcome? Google didn't give me anything conclusive, but I may not have looked hard enough.
The Christian Science Monitor wrote: The federal government now funds such programs at $120 million annually, with a proposal on the table to increase that to $135 million in fiscal year 2004. States that accept such funding must agree that sex ed classes will make it their "exclusive purpose" to teach "the social, psychological, and health gains to be realized by abstaining from sexual activity."
Quite apart from the question of which approach is correct, I feel very uncomfortable about the federal government using tax money to push a particular lifestyle on its citizens. I am even more concerned that this is a bi-partisan agenda that both Clinton and Bush have supported. Why on earth did civil rights - liberals and lean government - conservatives let their presidents get away with this?
The Christian Science Monitor wrote: Yet there is some encouraging news. The number of high school students who say they've never had sexual intercourse rose by almost 10 percent between 1991 and 2001, according to the Centers for Disease Control in Atlanta.
Judging by the word "encouraging", the Christian Science Monitor seems to take it for granted that the world is better off if teenagers don't have sex. Is this a majority view among Americans, or is this just the bias of this particular newspaper? ("Christian Science Monitor" sure sounds conservative to me.)
Thanks!
-- Thomas
nimh
There was a time where I might have agreed with all of you, but after learning what they are actually teaching children starting at a very young age it turned my stomache. This was in Massachusetts, so I couldn't tell you what goes on in other states or countries. Just to give you an example of what I'm trying desperately to say: In newton Mass there was a huge gay awareness gathering set up where all children from the ages 12 to 18 were encouraged to go regardless of their sexual preferance. Adults and oparents were not allowed to this gathering. Well, two young looking parents dresses themselves as teenagers, armed themselves with tape recorders (which were also not allowed) and went to this gathering full of children as young as 12 and they recorded the whole thing. The two parents that recorded this gathering were beside themselves when they heard what was being said to all these children by adults and you all would be shocked as well, I'm sure of it. The two parents made several copies of the tape and started passing them around to other parents until a court order stopped them in their track. They then sent a copy of the tape to the massachusetts news who sent out a free copy to anyone who was interested. The courts tried to stop it, but the Mass news is run by civil rights lawyers and they had every legal right to distribute the tape. Well, I have my copy and I almost fell off my chair when I heard the filth that was being taught to our children. This gathering was approved by Governer Cellucci and flyers were passed out in the schools to children as young as 12 who were encouraged to attend. In this gathering they encouraged sex and also encouraged strait children to experiment with the same sex to explore their sexuality. They explained sexual acts in detail and I do mean DETAIL!!! They glorified sex and encouraged it. I've had many people listen to the tape I have and not one of them wasn't shocked and disgusted at what they heard. People didn't believe me until they heard it for themselves.
We may not own our children, but as their guardians we need to be able to structure them as we see fit. Children may have rights, but we parents also have to have the right to prevent their minds from being polluted with filth. There is a lot more going on in the schools these days that a lot of people are not even aware of and it's gotten way out of hand.
Thomas
Thank you for your support ;-)
Thomas wrote: The Christian Science Monitor wrote:
On the other side are those who favor what is called "comprehensive" sex education. This approach may include teaching students that abstinence outside marriage is either one option or perhaps even the best course, but this message is followed up with practical information about sex. Generally this focuses on how contraceptives work, where to get them, and why they are important.
Would you say this is a fair characterization of the comprehensive sex education approach? Based on hearsay from my American friends, I had always thought this approach focuses on teaching facts, without "teaching" any particular sexual way of life.
The CSM article portrays the issue as being between 2 major views but, neglects to mention that there are divisions within those 2 major camps and those divisions can make for a quiite a bit of confusion.
In the "abstinance camp" you have those who will tell you that ANY sex outside of marriage will result in your immediate condemnation to hell out to those who tell you that abstinance is the only 100% effective method of preventing unwanted births and STDs.
In the "comprehensive camp" things range from basic factual information of types of contraceptives to full out discussion (along with associated graphics) of sexual techniques.
I would guess that most of us would be satisfied with the "abstinance is the only 100% effective method of preventing unwanted births and STDs" combined with "basic factual information of types of contraceptives" but very few would want either of the extremes. It is of course, the extremes that tend to get the attention though.
Here is the link to the story about that gathering I mentioned.
http://www.massnews.com/past_issues/2000/9_Sept/900fist1.htm
If you think this story is shocking, you should hear the tape. Maybe the Mass News is still sending people the tape free of charge, so if you are truly interested to know what the schools are pushing on young children in Massachusetts, then I think you should write the Mass News and request a copy. As I mentioned before, this is in Mass and I don't know what goes on in the rest of the world. By the way, this is just a tiny example of what's happening in the Massachusetts schools.
Those were 16 year old pupils, right?
They nearly would have stoned me, if I hadn't talked about that.
I agree that the methods seem to be quite pressing.
And I always taught it better when the youth got the infos in personal talks then be reading some half-trues in the youth magazines.
