# Lesbians on PBS!? Not while I'm Sec. of Education **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 26, 2005, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lesbians-on-pbs-not-while-im-sec-of-education/286830 "2005-01-26T21:57:45Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lesbians-on-pbs-not-while-im-sec-of-education/286830/61 "2005-01-27T16:58:08Z")
My wife is from Plattsburgh. The syrup made up that way is mighty fine. ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lesbians-on-pbs-not-while-im-sec-of-education/286830/62 "2005-01-27T16:59:43Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Would they balk at showing a single parent family? (For reference’s sake, Buster, Arthur, and all of their friends, to my knowledge, have two-parent families, so the cartoon version that kids are seeing does not tread into non-traditional family life at all). No, Buster’s parents are divorced and he lives with his mom. The original Arthur show has had episodes with Buster dealing with his dad not being around much because he travels for his job and lives in a different city. BTW, I think Arthur is one of the best children’s shows ever made. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 5:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lesbians-on-pbs-not-while-im-sec-of-education/286830/63 "2005-01-27T17:02:32Z")
> [@Homebrew](#): > > No, Buster’s parents are divorced and he lives with his mom. The original Arthur show has had episodes with Buster dealing with his dad not being around much because he travels for his job and lives in a different city. > > BTW, I think Arthur is one of the best children’s shows ever made. Ah, my mistake, then. My son is a fan of the show, and I agree it’s top notch, but I’m obviously not as versed as I thought I was. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 5:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lesbians-on-pbs-not-while-im-sec-of-education/286830/64 "2005-01-27T17:18:09Z")
By the way, I’m pleased to report that the show’s producer is [standing tall](http://www.boston.com/news/globe/living/articles/2005/01/22/wgbh_delays_show_featuring_lesbians/) about airing and distributing the aforementioned “maple syrup mommies” episode, although PBS itself decided to avoid it. The show is produced by the PBS affiliate WGBH-Boston. They decided to delay the scheduled airing of the episode from 2 February to 23 March, but they will show it and they will make it available to other PBS member stations. The linked article reminded me that the reason this particular “alternative family structure” comes up in the “Sugartime!” episode (honest, that’s its name) is that it’s taking place in **Vermont** , which has had **legal same-sex civil unions** for over four years now. So we’re not even talking about temporary gay “families” composed of casual sex partners and their kids, although some American children certainly live in such families. We’re talking about couples who are **legally recognized as equivalent to married spouses and the heads of an established family.** Conservatives who think that a family structure **legally sanctioned by an American state** (by more than one, in fact, considering that legalized same-sex marriage similarly sanctions it in Massachusetts) is something whose existence American children should be shielded **from even knowing about** , are suffering from a really severe case of head-in-the-sandism. What will they do next, remove Vermont and Massachusetts from their social-studies textbooks? “The Pilgrims who came to the American colonies in the _Mayflower_ landed at…um, some unidentified location not far from New Hampshire!” (I presume conservative textbooks will still be allowed to mention New Hampshire?) ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lesbians-on-pbs-not-while-im-sec-of-education/286830/65 "2005-01-27T17:24:26Z")
> [@Diogenes the Cynic](#): > > I don’t understand the compulsion to reduce all same-sex relationships to “sex.” … The “sex” is entirely in the minds of the homophobes. Amen! In fact, do we OR Spelling know for a fact that these two women have a sexual relationship at all? Or do they share a domicile because they are friends and co-workers who find it more convenient AND CHEAPER to live together? I have long thought that a viable alternative to single mothers living in poverty would be for them to form small communes (I mean SMALL, like two or three mothers, because larger communes tend to implode) in which one could provide daycare while the others work without having to worry about their kids. Good friends or sisters would be ideal for that arrangement. Now that I mention it–how do we know these women aren’t sisters? ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lesbians-on-pbs-not-while-im-sec-of-education/286830/66 "2005-01-27T17:29:10Z")
> [@Kimstu](#): > > They decided to delay the scheduled airing of the episode from 2 February to 23 March, but they will show it and they will make it available to other PBS member stations. On my birthday! w00t! I think the rampant homophobia in this country, as exhibited in the OP, is pure idiocy. However–as much as it pains me to say this, given his supercilious attitude and general assholery– **Mr. Moto** has a point. We can decry the government’s interference with public television, but, given that with money comes control, with the present administration in power we shouldn’t be suprised by it. I’m not sure what the answer should be. I for one support the existence of public braodcasting–I strongly believe that not everything should be a commercial product, with increasing shareholder profit as an eternal guiding principle. But, if you let the government have a hand in something, and that government is being run by totalitarian zealots, well…what do you expect? ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 5:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lesbians-on-pbs-not-while-im-sec-of-education/286830/67 "2005-01-27T17:30:50Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > As a native of Northern New York and formerly with family that owned sugarbushes, I must disagree, sir – Vermont maple products are a high-quality **second best** – much better promoted nationally than the Really Good Stuff, and _almost_ as good. 😛 Second best? Pfui. _Troisième._ ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lesbians-on-pbs-not-while-im-sec-of-education/286830/68 "2005-01-27T17:36:35Z")
> [@dropzone](#): > > Amen! In fact, do we OR Spelling know for a fact that these two women have a sexual relationship at all? Or do they share a domicile because they are friends and co-workers who find it more convenient AND CHEAPER to live together? I have long thought that a viable alternative to single mothers living in poverty would be for them to form small communes (I mean SMALL, like two or three mothers, because larger communes tend to implode) in which one could provide daycare while the others work without having to worry about their kids. Good friends or sisters would be ideal for that arrangement. Now that I mention it–how do we know these women aren’t sisters? Don’t be cute. If they were sisters they wouldn’t be two mommies - they’d be a mommy and an aunt. They are what they are, and your minimization of their relationship can be seen as offensive as right-wing attempts to blow it out of proportion. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lesbians-on-pbs-not-while-im-sec-of-education/286830/69 "2005-01-27T17:43:45Z")
**Knorf:** _But, if you let the government have a hand in something, and that government is being run by totalitarian zealots, well…what do you expect?_ Among other things, I expect fair-minded and freedom-loving people to stand up for tolerance and diversity in the distribution of public funds, even when—or rather, especially when—the government is being run by totalitarian zealots. Therefore, if you support the airing of the “Sugartime!” episode, please write or email your local PBS affiliate and urge them to show it. Please also write to the DOE and/or your local newspaper protesting this attempt at censorship in the name of the public. **dropzone:** \* In fact, do we OR Spelling know for a fact that these two women have a sexual relationship at all? \* Look at my linked article—I think it’s very clear that the producers, at least, identified this family as headed by a lesbian couple, although the topic of lesbianism or gay couples is in no way the focus of the episode. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lesbians-on-pbs-not-while-im-sec-of-education/286830/70 "2005-01-27T17:57:25Z")
I’m an idiot. I just remembered seeing an _Arthur_ episode in which Buster is distraught because his mom and her boyfriend have decided to stop seeing each other, and he plans some crazy scheme to get them back together. So I should have known that Buster’s dad was out of the picture, and since it’s he and his dad that do the _Postcards_, he’s obviously not dead. My bad. Wasn’t thinking. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 6:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lesbians-on-pbs-not-while-im-sec-of-education/286830/71 "2005-01-27T18:02:55Z")
Take heart. They’re making themselves look silly. Overlooking **Moto’s** major hijack into libertarian dogma, the central fact is that if public media, however funded, is deemed censorable, that’s trouble a-brewin’. How big a step is it to deny mention of lesbian couples under the specious rubric that any such mention implies approval, to censoring anti-war dissent under the presumption of national security issues? ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lesbians-on-pbs-not-while-im-sec-of-education/286830/72 "2005-01-27T18:16:31Z")
> [@Polycarp](#): > > First, the libertarian/statist one: Should the government be involved in regulating the affairs of the broadcast media, considering that they are using the publicly-owned airwaves? This is a circular argument – to stipulate that the airwaves are “publicly” (i.e. governmentally) owned is to accept full state control of the broadcast media as a given (control over how something is used is part of the definition of “ownership”). Ultimately, the notion of “publicly owned airwaves” is the result of blurring the boudary between legitimate regulation (preventing Joe Blow from interfering with John Doe’s broadcasts) and simple might-makes-right dominion. It is as if the government had managed to assert that the authority to prevent people from driving down the wrong side of the highway could be extended to the point of creating a system of Soviet-style internal travel passports. ---
**Author:** ![eleanorigby](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/ee7513/32.png) [@eleanorigby](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eleanorigby)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 6:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lesbians-on-pbs-not-while-im-sec-of-education/286830/73 "2005-01-27T18:41:42Z")
Arthur is one of the finest show on TV _ever_ for kids. The Buster spinoff is too. This is insane–Spellings makes it sound like Buster’s interview is endorsing hot lesbian porn! This woman has a sick mind. My email is going out to WTTW now–I foresee a busy 4 years of activism on my part. WTF? First SBSP and now Arthur? What’s next? Snoopy is a communist? What is WRONG with these people? Are they pod people? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lesbians-on-pbs-not-while-im-sec-of-education/286830/74 "2005-01-27T18:42:38Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Take heart. They’re making themselves look silly. > > Overlooking **Moto’s** major hijack into libertarian dogma, the central fact is that if public media, however funded, is deemed censorable, that’s trouble a-brewin’. How big a step is it to deny mention of lesbian couples under the specious rubric that any such mention implies approval, to censoring anti-war dissent under the presumption of national security issues? Maybe you can point out the censorship in this case, **elucidator**. I don’t see any, especially since the show in question has been made and will be shown. What has actually happened, all of your fullblown rhetoric aside, is that the government decided they didn’t want to spend money in this fashion. It then becomes a contractural matter between the government and an organization that has accepted government funds in exchange for providing a service. Now, being in the position of government contractor entails necessarily tempering some rights that otherwise you may assert. This is hardly censorship, since you’re free to persue those rights as an independent agent. I don’t think that decision should have been made in this case, and it demonstrates the various ways government can exert control. But let’s call this what it is, and censorship ain’t it. ---
**Author:** ![GrizzRich](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/7ba0ec/32.png) [@GrizzRich](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GrizzRich)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lesbians-on-pbs-not-while-im-sec-of-education/286830/75 "2005-01-27T18:44:46Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > I kind of feel some affinity for this viewpoint. > > I mean, I’ve tried authentic Vermont maple syrup, and I found it to be thin and watery, as well as keroseney-tasting. Not the kind of thing I think Michaela would thank her old man for introducing her to. Try the **Grade B** syrup. It doesn’t have the bright clear amber color that Grade A has. (Evidently, the bright clear amber color and the lighter maple taste seems to appeal to the masses) I’ve got a gallon (yes, a GALLON!) of Grade B at home. It’s darker, thicker and certainly much more FLAVORFUL. I’ve found if you add a few tablespoons of it to a regular corn syrup (Karo green-label or King red-label table syrups), it’ll taste like a heavy maple syrup. Granted, it’s not cheap! That gallon cost me nearly fifty bucks. But it’s gooooo-oooood! ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lesbians-on-pbs-not-while-im-sec-of-education/286830/76 "2005-01-27T19:00:12Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > I mean, I’ve tried authentic Vermont maple syrup, and I found it to be thin and watery, as well as keroseney-tasting. Which brand? Some are thinner/different tasting than others. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 7:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lesbians-on-pbs-not-while-im-sec-of-education/286830/77 "2005-01-27T19:07:45Z")
**SteveMB:** _to stipulate that the airwaves are “publicly” (i.e. governmentally) owned is to accept full state control of the broadcast media as a given (control over how something is used is part of the definition of “ownership”)._ But obviously, ownership doesn’t necessarily imply **total** control over use. For example, in your traffic-regulation analogy, the government doesn’t own the cars of individual drivers, but nonetheless you consider it “legitimate” for the government to control which side of the road they may drive on. If it’s not contradictory to assert that the use of a privately-owned car can be partly controlled by the government, then it’s not contradictory to assert that the use of publicly-owned, or governmentally-owned, airwaves can be partly controlled by other entities. Therefore, the description of the airwaves as “publicly owned” does **not** in fact imply that the government automatically has “ **full** control” over them. (And of course, the control over the actual use of the airwaves that we describe as “publicly owned” is in fact divided among the government, companies, other organizations, and individuals.) In other words, ISTM that **Polycarp** doesn’t have a circular argument; you’ve just got an inconsistent one. (I appreciate that you can correctly spell “publicly”, though; a distressing number of people apparently can’t.) **Mr. Moto:** _It then becomes a contractural matter between the government and an organization that has accepted government funds in exchange for providing a service._ I don’t think so. All that “New Broom” Spellings did was to [complain](http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/bw-exec/2005/jan/25/012503781.html) about the inclusion of the lesbian couple, to say that it was inconsistent with the purpose for which the DoE and Congress provided funding for the show (an assertion, btw, completely unauthorized and unsupported by Congress itself or any of the former DoE officials who had actually authorized the funding), and to **ask** PBS “to **consider** refunding the money it spent on this episode” (my emphasis). There ain’t no contract according to which PBS **owes** the DoE its money back if the DoE doesn’t like the product. All the DoE can effectually do, as Spellings did, is to warn that future content restrictions on funding will be made more explicit. Sure, let’s see those conservative troglodytes come back with regulations explicitly banning any allusions to homosexual people in children’s programming. Don’t conservatives have enough of an image problem as knuckle-dragging homophobes already? Alabama congressman Gerald “[Ban Gay Books](http://www.al.com/news/birminghamnews/index.ssf?/base/news/1101896768316400.xml)” Allen will look like a Diversity Day facilitator next to the lousy publicity that Spellings is going to set off if she actually attempts to stipulate this stuff in PBS’s “contract”. ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Moto](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de0a6/32.png) [@Mr.Moto](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Moto)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 7:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lesbians-on-pbs-not-while-im-sec-of-education/286830/78 "2005-01-27T19:14:12Z")
Right, **Kimstu** , and I don’t favor it. But calling it censorship is way overblown. This move was bad enough, IMO, without using that loaded word. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lesbians-on-pbs-not-while-im-sec-of-education/286830/79 "2005-01-27T19:50:06Z")
Point, but we do need some word to express the effect of this sort of “I **would** be censoring you if I had the authority, but since I don’t, I’ll make disapproving and menacing noises” maneuver. How about “censorial pressure”? ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [January 27, 2005, 7:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lesbians-on-pbs-not-while-im-sec-of-education/286830/80 "2005-01-27T19:53:31Z")
**Mr. Moto:** _But calling it censorship is way overblown. This move was bad enough, IMO, without using that loaded word._ Point, but we do need some word to express the effect of this sort of “I **would** be censoring you if I had the authority, but since I don’t, I’ll make disapproving and menacing noises” maneuver. How about “censorial pressure”? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lesbians-on-pbs-not-while-im-sec-of-education/286830.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/lesbians-on-pbs-not-while-im-sec-of-education/286830.md?page=5)