I have to assume that he/she brought that baggage from home in the first place.
Oh I see! At first I didn't understand but now I do... it wasn't the Headmaster who was at fault or the children but the children's parents for asking why they hadn't been consulted about the assembly and being homophobic ... thanks for clearing that up.
You really do have some serious problems, don't you?
Maybe I'm reading him differently Michael. IMO I don't think they should have been talking about any kind of sexuality to 5 year olds without close parental intervention and approval. km said "it was the children themselves who saw sexual connotations in their everyday behaviour as a result of what was fed to them during assemby"
He wasn't blaming the kids.
That's like why they have PG-13 ratings on movies. The children are only 5, very impressionable, and can't reason like an adult, which is why their parents should have been around to guide them, PG, "parental guidance" suggested.
I think the intent was good, to belay homophobia, if it had been for older children, but inappropriate in a public setting for children that young without a parent at hand.
So, in the context of bullying and homophobia in the playground, the kids are being told "this is what people mean when they use those words" but unfortunately it's too late to put a positive spin on it in any case, because the kids already "know" that being gay is "bad", cos their schoolmates are telling them all the time. So all that this well-meaning attempt did was make the kids more conscious of it. To me it just shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the way children's minds operate, to try and "educate" them collectively about something so ingrained. I imagine these "awful" pictures they were shown were just pairs of men or women holding hands or something - the fear comes straight out of the playground (which comes straight out of past generations of people trained to be scared of homosexuality in their own playgrounds and families). I give the school's governing body who decided to do this a B+ for motive and an F for execution.
_________________________ If it's brokenless, don't suffix it...
most five year olds do not translate behavior into sexual terms on their own.
Now we know you didn't read the article...
"Michelle Cosgrove, 33, said her three children, Jasmine, ten, Luke, seven, and Freya, five attend the school. She said the example of two boys holding hands and two boys kissing was mentioned in the assembly... she found herself answering questions on homosexuality when her children raised it at home."
Again, most five year olds do not translate behavior into sexual terms on their own. I seriously doubt the presentation was sexually graphic.
What was the point of that Michael? I had to go back and read what I wrote, I never said it was sexually graphic.
Edit - But they did say "explaining that the singer is homosexual and what the term means." The kids didn't translate the behavior on their own, it was explained as being sexual. Inappropriate content to present to a 5 year old, who probably can't even tie a shoe yet much less comprehend the subject matter, without a parent present or pre-approval by the parent.
Xplain's use of MacNews, AppleCentral and AppleExpo are not affiliated with Apple, Inc. MacTech is a registered trademark of Xplain Corporation. AppleCentral, MacNews, Xplain, "The journal of Apple technology", Apple Expo, Explain It, MacDev, MacDev-1, THINK Reference, NetProfessional, MacTech Central, MacTech Domains, MacForge, and the MacTutorMan are trademarks or service marks of Xplain Corp. Sprocket is a registered trademark of eSprocket Corp. Other trademarks and copyrights appearing in this printing or software remain the property of their respective holders.
All contents are Copyright 1984-2010 by Xplain Corporation. All rights reserved. Theme designed by Icreon.