My guess is that this kid did it for attention. He says he is part of an email campaign, and that he is right to be straight. Sounds like he has a homophobic agenda.
Okay, Yosemitebabe. Follow along now.
These safe zones were established for gay kids.
Because gay kids don’t know if the support services extended to the whole school population apply to them.
Because you’re never sure who’s homophobic.
The safe zone stickers are a way of saying, “This teacher is not a homophobe”, and “there is information here which can help you with your particular problems”.
Extend the safe zones to cover everybody, and what do they say? “This teacher is tolerant of absolutely everyone?” Find me anybody who fits this criteria. “I have information on all problems anyone can possibly encounter?” Umm… sure.
Your universal tolerance stickers, while well-motivated, are unrealistic. And if you were to insist on them, you’d leave gay kids back in the same position they were in to start with. Wondering if there’s anyone out there who can help them.
Which is how you’re arguing to deny help to children in pain.
Of course it does. That’s why a symbol for the sun now signifies race hatred and bigotry run rampant, while a symbol that denoted degeneracy now symbolizes tolerance and acceptance. How does the fact that the meanings of symbols change bolster your argument for not using the pink triangle for “safe zones” in school today?
Well, Ghod, we jutht can’t theem to get our uniformth coordinated with the bootth and gunthtockth. But jutht you wait, thailor. When the liberation cometh, you’ll be one of the firtht up againtht the wall. :rolleyes:
Meanwhile, soda fountains around the country want to contract with you for the distribution of straws from the man you just constructed. They’ll be supplied for the better part of the century off of this one.
“Safe” from what? Just saying “SAFE ZONE” doesn’t convey much of anything. The pink triangle does a much more effective job of saying “You’ll be listened to without judgement.”
Provide a citation for this as I’ve NEVER read anywhere that the pink triangle was any thing other than an identifier of who was a gay male.
What? I thought all of you were insisting it was for all kids! That’s basically what Lamia said, and you agreed with her!
If that’s so, why wouldn’t a sticker that CLEARLY HAS A PINK TRIANGLE (along with other symbols) tell them that they are included? What? Are these kids going to think the pink triangle got on there by mistake?
True. And you never know who will be racist, or have a thing about fat people. Search these boards’ archives. Look up the topic of “fat” - things can get real heated. A lot of people have a prejudice against it. People who otherwise might be really nice and tolerant. I am not equating it to the prejudice against gay people, but believe me, A LOT of people have a latent thing against fatness. You act as if only gay kids worry about whether their problems will be understood, or “included”. Not so. I often encountered otherwise kind and tolerant people who obviously felt I “brought the abuse on myself” by not trying hard enough to be thin. And, I have encountered latent racists too. What makes you think that only “your own” have to worry about this sort of thing?
See above.
Sure … so, just let them indicate that they are tolerant of ONE thing? Surely teachers are tolerant of more than one thing. Since, after all, you are trying to claim that these safe zones are really open to anyone. Right? So I don’t get it. Which is it - do you want the safe zones open to any troubled kid, (while only showing the pink triangle) or do you want the safe zones open only to gay kids, because, after all, no teacher can be tolerant of everything. So they’ll just stick to this one thing? Make up your mind.
I already said before - leave the frickin’ pink triangle on there. Make it REAL clear that these teachers have special training to help gay kids. I already said that before. Why should a gay kid still insist on believing that a safe zone was not for them, when they have been told that the teachers have special training for gay kids, AND there is a frickin’ pink triangle on the frickin’ sticker? Come on! What are you, dense?
Bullshit.
And, I might add - by your criteria, it looks like YOU are wanting to deny fat kids, and ugly kids in pain. Since they don’t know that the safe zones apply to them, because they don’t really know who does or does not have a latent thing about fatness. Oh, but wait a minute. Who cares? That’s not your problem. You just want to take care of “your own”.
I think they used triangles, but each was a different color, or something like that?
Yosemitebabe, you wrote:
NB: I have bolded a couple of your sentences that I would like to call to your attention.
As I understood MrVisible’s original exchanges with flesh99, these statements express his understanding of flesh99’s position (flesh99, this does represent my understanding of your position, based on the things you have written here. Please correct me if in fact, you are supportive of incremental approaches to social problems of this nature). MrVisible was originally (in my view) defending the principle of incremental improvements to the system, all the while deploring the fact that a wholesale “magic bullet” cure does not exist(MrVisible, please correct any misinterpretations I may be perpetuating).
As I understood your initial contributions to this conversation, your concern was that the approach taken at Woodbury High School might represent too small an increment, and leave various and sundry other types of children in need with no recourse to address their own problems. I also invite correction from you. Do you, in fact, endorse incremental approcahes in the absence of “magic bullets”? The sentences I bolded suggest to me that you do.
I find it unfortunate that MrVisible began arguing with you as though you had taken up flesh99’s rhetorical baton in toto when he seemed to have withdrawn from the field. It did (to me) make him appear shrill, dogmatic, narrow, and inflexible. Not to excuse any of his behavior, but I have the sense that he allowed himself to get backed into a corner, and the only path out of it appeared to be through, well, shrillness.
Pssst! MrVisible the real path out of the corner is going to involve eating some of your own words. Your construction of Yosemitebabe’s words as an endorsement of denying aid and comfort to children in need struck me as following a tortuous path.
Your simplistic worldview may need things to be black or white, but reality is painted in shades of grey. The options you described above are not the only two choices involved.
If you’ll read Lamia’s post, you’ll find that she said:
The safe zones are an important step in making sure that gay students, who are still openly harassed and ridiculed, and who display the statistical signs of a population at risk, achieve some sort of safe educational environment.
If students still feel free to approach teachers in a safe zone for a variety of problems, what is your issue with having a pink triangle as the symbol of that safe zone?
But back to your modest proposal. The safe zones as they stand offer tolerance to gay students, and supply participating teachers with information designed to help them. How do you propose to do the same in your “Universal Safe Zone”? How are you going to educate the participating teachers to be able to deal with all of the problems of all aspects of humanity? How are you going to make sure they’re aware of all the help out there available for any of the problems an adolescent might face?
You’re the one proposing these changes to the safe zone programs. You’re the one that needs to answer these questions.
The safe zones as they stand offer an at-risk population targeted help for specific problems. Your nebulous proposal offers an illusion of inclusion, but no practical ways to deliver on the help that it promises.
kaylasdad:
Thank you. You have it exactly.
Good afternoon, all. Just a question (since I’m not gonna try to read back thru 6 pages with the server this slow), can anyone out there tell me why/what the pink triangle design stands for? I don’t want to hear that it stands for “gay pride” or any other nebulus description.
I want to know why it’s pink, why it’s a triangle, and why it’s oriented (in rotation) in a particular way. Does the size of the symbol have any meaning? Are the edges fuzzy, straight, of of any other pattern? Is it a particular color of pink? Why?
All accepted symbols have very specific reasons they look the way they do; I want an understanding of what this damned pink triangle represents, precisely. Someone out there knows; but, if you can’t answer, please ignore this post.
I could say the same for you. You seem to think that only gay kids have worries and concerns. And while I am not negating their deep concerns, I also am thinking of other kids. I see that you have conveinently glossed over my mention of other kids’ worries about whether or not a teacher will really be accepting of their specific troubles. But of course, that’s not your problem, since they are not “one of your own”.
And why would a symbol that STILL INCLUDES A PINK TRIANGLE in prominence not tell them they were safe? And you don’t think other kids are not openly harrassed and ridiculed. I am not saying that other kids have it worse, because I know that it can get pretty bad for gay kids. But do you think that gay kids have cornered the market on pain?
And what is your problem with acknowledging that maybe other students could use a little reinforcement that they are included as well? As long as the pink triangle is STILL THERE - why can’t it “share” the spotlight a little?
I have been working with the assumption that the teachers would at least be able to give some cursory advice or counsel to other kids, and if needs be, direct them to other help. And, after all, they are ALREADY DOING IT ANYWAY - they already are (according to you) already helping and welcoming ALL kids, and they are NOT turning away any kids. Since you insist that ALL kids are welcome already, right?
No, not really. I am just proposing a change to the SYMBOL that indicates a safe zone. From what I have been told here, the safe zones are meant to make sure gay kids know they are welcome, but they are NOT meant to shut out of exclude any other kid. That’s what you-all have been insisting, right? That no one is excluded, no one is being turned away. If NO ONE is excluded, my take is that the teachers are actually equipped to deal with all the other kids, or if not, refer them to someone who CAN deal with their problems. So what’s the problem here?
I am only wanting the symbol that represents the safe zones to more accurately represent what you-all say it really is - a place for gay kids to feel safe, AND a place where any kid will be welcome, and NOT turned away. I think keeping a pink triangle prominent on the symbol could still accomplish that.
And I have to add - I was ready to accept Lamia’s interpretation of things to some extent. But, alas, I don’t accept your spin on things. At all.
It then took me two more minutes to reply to the aforementioned mistake made in my link. And it will be another two minutes for this to post.
I should add a correction: This line needs a question mark:
From [rul=“http://www.ushmm.org/”]The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum:
Esprix
Kaylasdad, thanks for the thought, but I’m afraid you missed a good deal of my point.
Yosemitebabe has a notion that it would be more effective to establish a symbol that appeals to all kids universally, without making gay kids feel excluded. Her idea, in her words, is:
An atmosphere of universal tolerance is already supposed to be in place at our schools. School counselors are all supposed to be completely unbiased. Teachers are supposed to be able to listen to all kids equally. It’s a great idea.
But it doesn’t work that way. People are human. People have prejudices, and counselors and teachers are not exceptions.
The current situation results in gay and lesbian students feeling excluded. There are resources available, but no way to find out about them without exposing yourself as homosexual. There are sympathetic teachers, but no way of identifying them.
Add to that the fact that most gay high school students aren’t out. What if you were to go to a teacher you thought would be sympathetic, and they let it be known to others that you were gay? In an atmosphere of open hostility toward homosexuals, that could very well be extremely dangerous.
The safe zones specifically identify people who have information on how these kids can get help. Usually the teachers involved in these programs are sympathetic to all student problems.
But implementing Yosemitebabe’s Universal Tolerance stickers renders the program meaningless. Instead of showing that they offer a possible haven and source of help, the stickers offer a message so broad in its promises as to be unbelievable. “ALL are welcome without fear of judgment, yadda yadda.” So, the gay kid and the neo-nazi are going to be equally accepted by the paragon of virtue teaching this class? Yeah, right.
Specifically targeted, these programs can do some good. Broaden them enough, and it’s another case of a touchy-feely program designed to make the people in charge of it feel good about themselves, without helping the people in need.
Well, gosh, that just makes things so easy for your argument, doesn’t it? Too bad that you’re wrong.
Are you saying that if I saw a pink triangle, and didn’t know what it stood for, and disliked it (because I don’t like pink, or don’t like triangles, or whatever), that I’m automatically homophobic and bigoted?
What this boils down to is the school promoted the rights of one group of people (by sanctioning the “gay pride” symbol) while refusing to recognize the rights of another person with an equally valid but opposing viewpoint. That’s wrong. It would be wrong if we were talking about Protestants/Catholics, blacks/whites, or whoever.
Sooo…Mr. Visible. The safe zones are not really for all kids, after all? So which is it? Are they, or aren’t they? Do the safe zones turn away other non-gay kids? Because, after all, they are not equipped to take care of non-gay kids? If they don’t turn away straight kids, how can you say they are just for gay kids?
And, I have repeated several times, I am all for the schools emphasizing that these safe zones have teachers that have been specifically trained to help gay kids. I want the message out there that the gay kids are welcome, really welcome.
So how does this mean that I am wanting to “deny kids help”? Pray tell. Kaylasdad is right. You have been too strident, and your argument is too tortured.
Sorry Pariah, but I couldn’t find the precise description. (For that matter, I can’t get there at the moment; maybe something’s hosed with someones’ server. Another problem is my security settings; they let me get to SDMB, but none of the sites I tried in Google. I wounder why? Another problem is that if I overrode the settings, my job could be at risk; you know, security clearance and all that stuff. Is it worth it? I DON’T THINK SO. So, like I asked, if you can’t answer here, ignore the post.)
Hey Yosemitebabe!
I never advocated turning anybody away. I have restated my position several times, in several different ways, and I refuse to do so again for the benefit of someone who seems incapable of understanding the value of being specific in offering help.
Here’s a clue, though. One of the things that they teach you in first aid class is that if you need someone to call 911, you don’t say, “Somebody call 911!” No matter how big the crowd is, no-one will go. You pick someone out, point to them, and say, “You! Go call 911.”
The more vague you are, the less help you’re likely to be.