he's not allowed to be proud that he's straight

Yosemitebabe, thanks for acknowledging my post (thinking of having my screen name altered to “chopped_liver”). What strikes me as problematic is that the term “safe zones” is now being used as the center of the debate here. Are we still talking about the safe zones at Woodbury High specifically, or have we evolved to where we’re talking about safe zones in general?

Specific to Woodbury High, it would be nice to know some more about the program: how it began, how it is operated, how it is performing, and whether any other problems are being uncovered or created as a result of the way it is being implemented. Predictably, the AFA website is silent as regards these questions, and unfortunately, the Woodbury High website, besides being silent about the program, doesn’t even offer an e-mail address for the head of the guidance counseling department (four counselors plus a department head for 1500 students, BTW), that would make it practical to ask. My point here is that we have insufficient data to tell us whether to apply the adage “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.”

However, Lamia’s observations, to the extent that they can be applied to the specific program at Woodbury, tend to suggest that the program as implemented, does not tend to make anyone feel either excluded, or like they’re outing themselves (one of flesh99’s problems with it, IIRC). To be sure, everyone here keeps talking about a small sticker, whereas Young Master Chalmers makes reference to “posters”; still, I am not inclined to give Chalmers the benefit of the doubt and assume that at Woodbury High the pink triangle signs are the size of the Britney Spears poster I wouldn’t let Michaela get the last time we were in Tower records (why am I not inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt? Because he has clearly telegraphed his views and his agenda with his essay [which might more accurately be titled "Elliot’s Side of the Story], and it’s highly possible to apply the term “poster” to anything that is “posted”).

Yosemitebabe, your concerns about the possible exclusive appearance of the program, appear to be based in large part on your own difficulties, and how you would have percieved the availability of the program to you personally. While I’m sorry that you seem to have had problems with assertiveness, on top of everything else (and at the same time happy that you seemed to earn a Master’s degree in empathy with a cum laude in compassion as a result), would have can be a dangerous conditional to throw around. As I see it, yes, you may have been so sure that the zones weren’t for you, that you would not have thought to avail yourself of their benefits, but you also may have heard or overheard comments such as “oh, Mr. Spurgeon in room 311 is such a good listener, you know him, he’s the one on the third floor with the pink triangle near the door, well, anyway, I was talking with him the other day about my composition assignment? And I was, like, all, 'I don’t know how to keep concentrating on my homework, ‘cause, like I’m like having these mondo serious problems with my sister’s boyfriend coming on to me when he’s over to visit her and she, like, goes into the kitchen for a snack,’ and he was, like, all, ‘well, you could always, like, ask your sister nicely to not bring him into your house while you’re trying to do your homework,’ and then he gave me this pamphlet about sexual harrassment, and told me I should, like, read it and get back to him if I needed any help, with, like, understanding any of the stuff, or, like putting the stuff into practice.” (Note: this is my first attempt at typing in Valley-speak; how did I do?) And hearing sometihing like that may have given you the boost you needed to seek out some help for yosemitebabe.

No, but you have been simultaniously claiming that these sfe zones are specifically for gay kids, but they’re also for any kids. So which is it?

And I have asked several times why a sticker that specifically includes a pink sticker, and specifically emphasizes that gay kids are welcome would not still retain the distinct message that gay kids are specifically welcome. But you still want to insist that I want to “deny kids in pain”.

So, since hospitals are there to help everyone, they are of no use? Do you think these sources of help have to be REALLY specific, or they are useless? And then, why do schools have counselors at all? They don’t have a sticker on their office door indicating what they “specialize” in, so why should ANY student feel confident in asking for help? Because, after all, unless their focus of help is specific, it’s no good, right?

Also, I have told you how for some fat kids (and other kids with other issues as well) have encountered people who seem to be open-minded, but are not when it comes to their specific problem. I’ve encountered this personally. (But of course, you don’t want to hear this or acknowledge this, because your tunnel vision only allows you to pay attention to “your own”.)

So - by your description, everyone with every issue really shouldn’t assume that anyone would be open to their problems, should they? So, why don’t all teachers have stickers that indicate what issues they are friendly to? Some teachers will have the pink triangle, some will have maybe a fat kid symbol and also a pink triangle, while others would NOT have a pink triangle, but would have a symbol indicating…say…black and hispanic. And so on and so on. I mean, if safe zones are so great for gay kids (but God Forbid their safe zones be extended to anyone else) then all the other kids need their own specific safe zones too, right? So how about all teachers cherry-pick which “issues” they are comfortable dealing with, plaster the appropriate sticker on their door, and be done with it? Or do you feel that only gay kids can have a safe zone, and there should ONLY be a pink triangle ever associated with the safe zones?

One thing to keep in mind, folks - gays and lesbians are known as “the invisible minority” for a reason. You can’t hide being black or overweight or disabled, but you can hide being queer. It’s easy to deal with what’s right there in front of you, but much, much harder to deal with something that’s so easy to hide. A comparable situation would be one’s religion, but there are innumerable out-of-school resources available to you that are faith-specific (I believe the kids today are calling them “churches”). Queer kids, however, don’t have those kinds of resources. That in and of itself I see as a very, very good reason to have specified safe zones.

Esprix

I have it in my mind of a more general concept of “safe zone”. but I’m certainly open to finding out more about the Woodbury High experience specifically.

Yes, I feel far more comfortable with Lamia’s interpretation of things. But I don’t agree with Mr. Visible’s spin on things - so I have been arguing with him about it!

Bless your heart, you are very kind. And yes, “could have” and “would have” can be fraught with flaws. Which is why I was willing to see Lamia’s view of things as having merit. And, I see your (wonderfully crafted) Valley-speak narrative as having merit.

But, I also have a problem with Mr.Visible’s insistance that adding any other additions to the safe zone symbol “may have” or “would have” the result of scaring gay kids away. I have been quite specific in my details, and how I would REALLY want to make sure that any additions or alterations to the safe zone symbol would still make it very obvious that gay kids are welcome, and specifically included. But Mr.Visible is convinced that (I presume) that any alteration, “would have” or “may have” the result of driving the gay kids away. Which I don’t I buy.

And, I have already clarified other problems I have with his stance, mainly, his tunnel-vision “take care of my own” attitude, which, frankly, I do not respect at all.

Specific? You’ve been specific? That’s rich, that is.

Okay, then. Answer the following. Specifically.

How would you make the gay symbol you chose for the sticker prominent on the sticker, without it seeming to be superior to your other happy-friendly little icons?

What would your symbol for fat people look like?

What would your symbol for ugly people look like?

What would your symbol for Asian people look like? Assuming, of course, that you want to generalize that much, and don’t mind offending Korean people who don’t like being lumped in with Japanese people, etc.

What wording would you have on these stickers?

You see, the generalization that you propose has a whole bunch of inherent problems. You think people are up in arms about a pink triangle sticker, wait until they notice that the pink triangle sticker on your Universal Safe Zone emblem is bigger than their little white person symbol.

But if you can answer these questions, specifically (not like your last little description), you’ll be well on your way toward having a major positive impact for social change. I wish you the best of luck.

Oh, and hey, Kaylasdad, I noticed. And I think you’re an excellent addition to this discussion; maybe the level-headed opinion we need to finally end this.

I wanted to bring up one other point about the Universal Safe Zones that Yosemitebabe seems to advocate for solving everybody’s problems everywhere.

Let’s say she successfully designs a wonderful sticker, that can make every minority on the planet feel like the teacher posting the sticker will understand their problems and be able to help.

Remember my story, way back on Page 4? (For those of you not following this epic thread, MrVisible, after years of dealing with his problems alone, turned to Mrs. B, a trusted teacher, for help. She took him to a priest. While it’s an innovative solution for a teen boy struggling with his sexuality, it didn’t help much.) Remember Mrs. B?

Mrs. B was a nice teacher. She was known as the one you could go to for help, with pretty much anything. And yet, she was totally clueless as to help me deal with my homosexuality, and the pressures associated with it.

If you asked her to put up a Universal Tolerance sticker, I’m sure she would. She was great to everybody.

But that wouldn’t mean she was prepared to deal with a gay student’s problems.

Wanting to help everybody is admirable. Being prepared to deal with the particular problems associated with being an adolescent homosexual is completely different.

Hmmm…well, I know whatever suggestion I bring up will be dismissed as “inane”.

Well, there are many different categories to pain with kids. Image and weight issues. Racial issues. Athletic issues. Academic issues. Divorce issues. Abuse issues. Harrassment issues. Perhaps it might be simpler to indicate each of these “categories” of issues with a symbol, or just the words. And a teacher can cherry-pick which areas they are comfortable dealing with. Because, OF COURSE, we all know they can’t cover it all. So how is anyone going to know which areas they “specialize” in? We gotta find a way to let the kids know! The same way the pink triangle makes sure the gay kids know that they are specifically welcome! Why should other kids not be given the same consideration that the gay kids get? So how can you be against that?

But - what the hell. Whatever suggestion I come up with (and hell, it’s off-the-cuff, so it’s gonna be flawed) you will shoot down. So perhaps my idea of each teacher slapping a sticker for each “category” of issues they are open to is better than just one universal sticker. They can pick categories for racial, appearance/weight, etc. But of course, that’s not specific enough, is it? So, I ask, why don’t lesbians have their own sticker represented? Why don’t transexuals have their own sticker? Why don’t cross-dressers have their own stickers? How can just the one pink triangle sticker possibly apply to all these different groups? It’s either going to be too specific, or not specific enough, isn’t it?

You still haven’t acknowledged my concerns about the other kids, with their concerns about not being “included” in the school’s tolerance policy. Why should a fat kid assume that the school counselor or “safe zone” teacher (with that pink triangle sticker) be receptive to them? You insist that the gay kids feel no assurance that they are really represented, so what assurance do any of the other kids really have either? (I have personally learned that I cannot assume that everyone will be sympathic to my plight, after all.) And, do you really think that no other kids get hatred and harrassment from their peers? I asked before - do you think that gay kids have cornered the market on pain?

Hey, and while I’m at it, do you have any ideas to have more inclusion to ALL kids in pain? Or will you only confirm that you don’t really care, unless they’re “your own”? You are so busy insisting that I come up with these brilliant ideas (off the cuff, gotta be perfect the first time out) but I see you offering NOTHING, except to bitch that I am trying to “deny kids in pain”. Well, the way I see it, your insistence in ignoring all other kids except “your own” shows that you are “denying kids in pain”. I don’t see you acknowedge or showing any concern for any other group’s suffering, except your own.
I see this as being an “only us” thing with you. ONLY “your own” will be represented, and No One Else Need Apply.

So, Yosemitebabe, you admit you have no idea how to make your plan work. Good. We’re getting somewhere.

Now, go find a group of kids whose problems you understand. Kids you think you can help. Kids who need you. Kids you can relate to.

Think of ways to make their lives better. Consult educational psychologists, parents, teachers, and school administrations. Formulate a plan.

You’ll probably find that, after researching the issues for this group of kids, the solutions they need differ from those of gay kids. Anonymity probably won’t be as much of an issue. You might be able to advertise the locations of support groups without worrying about getting firebombed, so you can bypass the whole safe zone stage altogether.

Come up with a program of solutions for these kids you understand. Get the program past the school board; that’ll be the tough part.

Then find people to pitch in and help out. You’ll find a lot of people who share your concerns, and who can relate to these kids as well, and who want to help.

You’ll face a lot of opposition from people who question the validity of your program, claiming it to be unnecessary, exclusive, or badly-planned.

But at least you’ll be doing something to help, in a definite, concrete fashion.

That’s how you can help kids in need, starting right now. It’s a practical, viable solution targeted at the people you know how to help best.

Hmmm…no, I don’t think I ever admitted that I didn’t know how to make the idea work. I said that I knew YOU would shot whatever idea I had down. Which, as predicted, you have done.

My idea is that since these safe zones ALREADY supposedly are “including” all kids, that all kids should know. Because, as you have pointed out, there isn’t any reason that kids should KNOW that a teacher is really receptive to them, right?

However, if the pink triangle safe zones are not really for all kids, but just “your” kids, then let’s start a program for every group of troubled kids. Get the teachers educated (if you wish) on whatever issue they are receptive to, and let them slap the appropriate sticker on their door, right next to the pink triangle. Why can’t I want the “safe zones” to apply to other kids? Use the same concept? Surely teachers can be “specific” with more than one issue. And after all, according to you, they are ALREADY DOING IT. You claim that no kid is being turned away from the existing safe zones. So why not elaborate on that? Enhance it? Why are you against that? Why do you want to deny these (non-gay) kids in pain?

Of course not, you fucking dolt. We’re talking about the message behind the symbol, not the particulars of its structure and coloration. The only way you probably wouldn’t know what it meant is because you are either young and haven’t been exposed to these kind of things or you’ve been living with your head in the sand for the last ten years.

Homophobia is not a valid viewpoint. It is hate speech and has no right to espression in a school environment that seeks to teach tolerance and promote a harassment-free atmosphere.

Yosemitebabe, this has turned into a shouting match between you and I. It’s a waste of the SDMB’s bandwidth.

If you want to continue this discussion in email, my address is in my profile.

If anyone would like to see us continue to address this point, please post here, and I will be happy to continue this discussion publicly.

Otherwise, this is my final post in response to Yosemitebabe in this thread.

Is it too much to assume that this is your final post to anyone in this thread? I suspect there are several others who’re concerned that you’re going to have some nasty bumps on your forehead. Fold, Yb outmaneuvered you in toto.

Just because I don’t want to expose the rest of the boards to an uninteresting circular discussion between two people who seem completely unable to agree on any one point, which no-one else has been part of for pages, doesn’t mean I’m not going to be around to debate despicable fuckwits like yourself.

You want to see me address Yosemitebabe further? I made it clear that if anyone posted asking that we continue, I would be glad to oblige. You have to read the little letters, and they make words. Go ahead, try and sound them out.

If you want it to continue, ask. If not, what’s your most recent piece of idiocy? I am eager to whack you around with the sturdy four by four of reason.

'Uigi, you crack me up!

Mr.Visible, I am weary of this, and have no desire to take this to email. We are both stubborn in our positions. You are firmly convinced that any enhancement or alteration to the status quo will result in the gay kids being left out. I want more kids to be included, and I find the idea of enhancing an existing concept that many of you think has merit (safe zones) as A GOOD THING. So there you have it. We are spinning our wheels.

I have to say, I still can’t get over your “I’ll take care of my own” attitude, and I really have no use for it.

I think uigi the problem was that neither of them were getting anywhere. Their arguement is starting to repeat and is mostly pointless.

Mr.Visible, you certainly have a tendency to tell people to shut up, (or use words to that effect) don’t you? You have been, on occasion, exceedingly rude to me. I see you are that way to others as well. This is the Pit, so I guess you can be as much of a boor as you wish. And boor you have been.

('Uigi, we part company on some issues, like the “condone” thing, but you still crack me up!)

Ok, I get to guess the little letters… Hmmmmm? How about “f.u.c.k.w.i.t.s.” (whatever the heck that is; doesn’t that make your brain hurt?).

I’m only guessing, but might it stand for: Funny Unloved Children Know We’re Ignoramous Turkey Shitheads? Can’t get 'em all right I guess.

I’m far more tolerant than you might imagine; 24 yrs in the USN can teach you more about people than you’d ever want to know. I’m pleased you’ve found a bit of humor in my posts; but, if you take this stuff too seriously, you’ll go nuts (or whatever, …or maybe not, …well, hell I don’t know how to finish that one).

I rarely repeat myself, but I feel that this question is the heart of the matter and I’ve seen it poorly addressed as of late.

What slogans may a straight person use, to openly proclaim his pride in being straight, without being considered “hate speech”?

If enough people want to call it “hate speech”, there’s not much a person can do about it. I can wear a shirt that says, oh, “Paper”, and if enough people want to tie their panties in a knot, I can be considered more hateful than a Grand Dragon of the KKK.

I’m still trying to fiqure out why someone’s ‘pride’ in heterosexuality would require an open proclamation.