I searched the archives for a debate on this and was surprised to see there hasn’t been one(at least not one with the words “straight” or “pride” in the title).
Anywho, there was recently an interesting case down in Missouri(I think). There is a high school there where homosexual, bi-sexual, or transgender students are given a special room that they can go to after school and meet with some staff to talk about how they are feeling(if they are made fun of or are having trouble at home because of their sexuality). I’m for this. Sounds like a great idea.
Not only that, but these students are allowed to wear “gay pride” shirts, both that say gay pride on them and those that have gay pride symbols on them(the two they showed were an upside-down pink triangle and a rainbow).
A young boy decided he would like to wear a shirt that says “straight pride” on it. He’s not against gay people being able to meet in rooms. He’s not agains them having shirts. He just wanted to wear a “straight pride” shirt also. He did. He was immediately suspended. He sued the school. He won.
Isn’t his suspension a huge example of hypocricy? The very institution that fought to protect homosexual students kicks a straight student out for expressing his mind.
Well, it is a big example of hipocracy. Mexicans can have brown pride tatooed all over them and have nothing thought of it, but if a white person has white pride on them, it’s suddenly racist and unexceptable. The best thing to do is learn to live with it, and fight it when you can.
Uuummm, the story only talks about the ‘safe zones’, and makes no mention whatsoever of anyone wearing a ‘GAY PRIDE’ t-shirt, or that such a t-shirt would be allowed.
Do you have a link to different story that says ‘gay pride’ t-shirts were allowed?
As I mentioned in the earlier Pit thread on this issue, I attended a high school that participated in the Safe Zone project. I have visited several other schools that were also participants. If the high school in question does in fact provide a special room for GBLT students, then it is different from every other Safe Zone school I have ever heard of. Without a specific and detailed cite, I am disinclined to believe that this school does any such thing.
Teachers and school faculty members who wish to participate in the Safe Zone project often (always?) undergo some sort of sensitivity training, and then they display a small Safe Zone sticker on their office or classroom door. This is to let GBLT students know that if they wish to discuss a problem relating to their sexuality with this a sympathetic adult, then they can be sure that this particular teacher or faculty member will not try to “help” them by telling them that they’re bound for hell. That’s all. There’s no special room, no flashing sign, no dancing drag queens.
**
Once again, I’m going to have to ask for a cite. I suppose there may not have been an official rule against gay pride apparel, but I doubt students at this school actually wore any. You would be hard pressed to find any school in the nation where students sport gay pride shirts, if only because it would produce roughly the same affect as wearing a “Please beat, mock, and shun me” shirt.
It is socially acceptable to be proud to be part of a group that is seen as being oppressed, but not OK to be proud to be part of a group that is seen to be the oppressor. As a white South African living in London (UK) this is an issue that I struggle with on and off…
This also applies to the establishment - oppositon to the establishment (religious/educational/political) is cool, while supporting it is not…
We have hit this issue a lot on the boards, and the problem arises in the use of the word “pride”.
It is absurd and meaningless to be “proud” of a condition or circumstance in which you had no involvement in creating. I am not “proud” to be left-handed; I simply am left-handed.
But minority pride groups are not about “pride”; what they are really about is promulgating the idea that there is nothing to be ashamed of if you are a member of a minority.[sup]1[/sup] Someone back in the day decided that the antonym of “shame” is “pride”, when it really isn’t, and the idea caught on - I guess slogans like “Gay Okayness” just don’t roll off the tongue.
So, why is it acceptable for minority groups to misuse the language so, but majority groups can’t? Well, the message of the minority groups is that “it is OK to be different”. Are punks like the kid in the OP trying to say “it is OK to be normal”? Of course they aren’t - in our society, normal already equals OK.
So what are they trying to say? A reasonable interpretation is that they are trying to say “it is better to be normal.” This is an unacceptable message - to claim you are superior because of an innate condition is the definition of bigotry.
Sua
[sub]1[/sub] Of course there are minority pride groups who take the position that members of the that minority are superior to the majority. This is as unacceptable an majority pride groups.[/sub]
Sua: Excellent post. I would’ve said much the same thing, only slightly less well.
But I do beg to differ on one point: there is a possibility that someone wants to send the message that it’s OK to be “normal”. This is a purely hypothetical situation, but suppose someone feels that they don’t stand out in any way, and is jealous of the attention that people who are different get. This person may well want to say that it’s OK for them to be “normal”.
But people who want to send messages need to be sure that their messages will be properly interpreted. If I saw someone whose t-shirt read “straight pride”, I would interpret that as anti-homosexual and be offended.
I am not a hard-core conservative. My right-wings friends think I’m too liberal. I do not think homosexuality is evil or bad. It is what it is.
However, I do not think sexual orientation is an appropriate subject for what is essentially a high school ‘club’. Would it be ok to have an ‘oral sex’ club or a ‘doggie style’ club? High school students are simply not mature enough to be sure about their sexuality, whether it be their prefered position or orientation.
I think that private counceling about it is a great idea, but this notion of just allowing a ‘Gay & Lesbian safe zone’ is essentially just a way to ignore it.
It is not a club. There is no “one room.” Mahaloth got his facts wrong; please read the referenced pit thread for further information.
It is instructors, with special stickers (or posters, no one has provided a reliable cite stating which it actually is), in their classrooms, indicating that they have had special training in dealing with the needs of the GLBT community of that high school.
This is a community at high risk of suicide and abuse or harassment by their fellow classmates (which I’m sure matt_mcl, Esprix or andygirl, among others, can come up with cites for), particularly if they talk to the wrong person. Especially in high school.
The boy in question wore the shirt knowing there would be students who objected. Essentially, he wore it not because he’s proud he’s straight, but as a slap in the faces of those whom the school is trying to provide support for. After all, “Every day is Straight Pride day.”
He wanted attention. He wanted his 15 minutes. He got it. Can we stop giving it to him? Please?
Or find a nice, neutral cite (or site), one that has no bias, just facts, so we can discuss the facts, instead of the bias.
This may come as a surprise to you, but there are many gay high school students who are not sexually active. Despite the term “sexual orientation”, it isn’t all about sex.
I have seen no mention of the high school in question having any sort of gay student organization, but some high schools do have gay-straight alliances or support groups. These are not by any stretch of the imagination sex clubs. They are more akin to, say, the Jewish Students Organization or the Nubian Brothers and Sisters: clubs where members of a particular minority group can socialize with each other and discuss issues of concern to their community.
There are reasons to doubt the accuracy of this report:
Human Rights Watch is identified as an advocacy organization in Hastur’s cite.
The total number of gay teens is probably well under 2 million. According to the US Census in 1998 there were 60 million Americans less than 15 year old. http://www.census.gov/apsd/techdoc/cps/mar98/table1.html The number of teen-agers must be about 30 million. I have seen estimates that about 4% of the population is gay, so the total number of gay teen-agers should be around 1.2 million.
My experience in school and my daughters’ experience doesn’t agree with such widespread aggression against gays. I don’t recall having seen or heard of an incident.
My guess is that HRW took 2 million as their (generous) estimate of the total number of gay teen-agers and simply assumed that every single one of them was subject to harassment.
Is the data of advocacy groups automatically wrong?
You’re forgetting harassment of teenagers who are percieved of as gay. Quite the popular hobby, it is, and it’s another one of those impossible statistics.
That doesn’t discount the arguement. Just because you didn’t see it doesn’t mean it didn’t happen. Besides, homophobic harassment comes in many different forms.
If you want to argue in terms of personal experience, that of me and mine is compelling proof of widespread, violent homophobia.
I would argue that regardless of the number being a half million, two million, or however many, that homophobia in school still needs to be stopped.
Gee. In Corvallis, Oregon, where I live, the President of the Gay Straight Alliance at Crescent Valley High School had his teeth beaten out. But of course, since it didn’t happen by you, it must not happen at all.
You really are a homophobe, december. It wasn’t enough that you were trying to spread a truth-free remark about gay students getting to wear Gay Pride shirts, and recieving preferential treatment. Now, when given a cite, you have to claim it isn’t true, and belittle it. GROW UP.
How many 16 or 17 or 18 year olds? Aren’t they teens too?
I have seen estimates that about %10 of the population is gay. I have also seen higher estimates. But then estimates are just guesses.
You think they are inflating their numbers? You think they would go to the trouble of finding numbers, then simply make an unfounded assumption…oh, wait…
