Kids Today

Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
46,788
Likes
17,152
Points
284
Location
Eblana
No. No, it wouldn't, and one concern about the inclusion of LGBT material in the curriculum for younger and younger children is just that. Early sexualisation under the guise of diversity and inclusion.
It's time to call it this and refute the diversity argument. ANY early sexualisation is inappropriate at best and frankly I'm inclined ask searching questions about those that support it.
Indeed, early sexualisation is something to be avoided. But the idea that there is something wrong with being LGBT should also be avoided and I don't think either of you were suggesting that.

Increasingly schoolchildren are coming from Lesbian/Gay families so questions will arise about this among pupils from traditional families. Its important that teachers are trained to deal with this in a sensitive manner. That should not include encouraging kids to be gender fluid and it doesn't have to include actual sex education.

I'm bisexual and I think i first started wonder about my sexuality around puberty but other LGBT people I know say they had inklings much earlier. I don't know what the correct age for actual sex education to begin is but when any sex education is introduced then it shouldn't stigmatise LGBTs. But nothing wrong with saying that approx 95% of people are straight.
 

Quake42

Warrior Princess
Joined
Feb 25, 2004
Messages
9,311
Likes
3,746
Points
219
Indeed, early sexualisation is something to be avoided. But the idea that there is something wrong with being LGBT should also be avoided and I don't think either of you were suggesting that.

Increasingly schoolchildren are coming from Lesbian/Gay families so questions will arise about this among pupils from traditional families. Its important that teachers are trained to deal with this in a sensitive manner. That should not include encouraging kids to be gender fluid and it doesn't have to include actual sex education.

I'm bisexual and I think i first started wonder about my sexuality around puberty but other LGBT people I know say they had inklings much earlier. I don't know what the correct age for actual sex education to begin is but when any sex education is introduced then it shouldn't stigmatise LGBTs. But nothing wrong with saying that approx 95% of people are straight.
Yep, nothing to argue with there. I'm not comfortable however with teaching very young kids some of the rather - shall we say - controversial "feelz not facts" gender stuff - I think we talked about this on another thread.

Also, and this is even more troubling, there is and always has been the more outre end of the sexual liberation movement that attempts to hijack legitimate LGBT initiatives for more sinister purposes, namely normalising child abuse. Some well-meaning but rather foolish people were conned by this in the 70s and I worry that we may see more of it with the clamour from activists to "educate" quite young kids in very adult topics. I hope I'm wrong on this.
 

Yithian

Parish Watch
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
Messages
23,195
Likes
19,927
Points
309
Location
East of Suez
I'd prefer the school deal with human biology and (with the onset of puberty) 'safe sex', and leave the rest to parents.

I don't think it should be a school's duty to 'normalise' any kind of sexual behaviour or 'expose' children to niche sexual proclivities. Just tell them that most people do A and B, but there are a number of others ways of going about business that they will no doubt discover as they grow older. Schools should a) teach and b) build character. If a child has a good character, he will make the right decisions about how to treat and talk to other people without needing to be taught the ins and outs of specific cultural fields.

I had practically no sex education at school, my father told me about the birds and the bees and I slowly discovered everything else bit by bit as I grew up--what's wrong with that?
 
Last edited:

escargot

Beloved of Ra
Joined
Aug 24, 2001
Messages
23,456
Likes
15,474
Points
309
I had practically no sex education at school, my father told me about the birds and the bees and I slowly discovered everything else bit by bit as I grew up--what's wrong with that?
That's fine if nobody else steps in to 'teach' a child about sex. Children need to be taught to stay safe from adults who might try to take advantage. That's part of the reason for sex education.
 

GingerTabby

Carbon-based life form
Joined
Nov 20, 2012
Messages
875
Likes
1,521
Points
139
I had practically no sex education at school, my father told me about the birds and the bees and I slowly discovered everything else bit by bit as I grew up--what's wrong with that?
Unfortunately, not all parents discuss the birds and the bees with their children. Mine fell into that category. Apparently they went to their graves thinking that I was still under the impression that babies were delivered by the stork. At school I was taught the human biology side of it but nothing more. Had I not been taught that I probably would have picked up my knowledge of sex from the media and schoolyard chit-chat. Neither should be primary sources of sex information for children.

Scargy makes a good point about teaching children to stay safe. I've heard that sex education now includes discussion of what constitutes healthy relationships. This could be beneficial for students whose home situations don't provide good examples to follow.

I realise that most parents are responsible and will teach their children about sex. Mine were an exception in that regard but I know I'm not the only person to have had that experience.
 

escargot

Beloved of Ra
Joined
Aug 24, 2001
Messages
23,456
Likes
15,474
Points
309
Unfortunately, not all parents discuss the birds and the bees with their children. Mine fell into that category. Apparently they went to their graves thinking that I was still under the impression that babies were delivered by the stork.
Totally true. I was told more or less 'Never mind what it's about, don't do it!' At the same time I was taught that I should obey men at all times so it was all bit tricky.
 
Joined
Aug 19, 2003
Messages
46,788
Likes
17,152
Points
284
Location
Eblana
We discussed the acid attacks here. This shouldn't be made into a political footbal, just accept that a mistake was made and change the law back, swiftly.

The Government ignored expert advice and made changes in 2015 that made it easier to buy dangerous acids that have been used in a spate of attacks in recent weeks, The Independent can reveal.

Changes made in the Deregulation Act 2015 scrapped an obligation on sellers of dangerous substances, including acids, to be registered with their local council. The move was opposed by medical experts, who warned that it could make it easier for criminals to get their hands on highly toxic substances, and by the Government’s own advisory board on the regulation of hazardous chemicals.

Ministers boasted at the time about “cutting red tape” but are now under mounting pressure from MPs and campaigners to re-tighten laws to make it harder for people to get their hands on highly concentrated acids. It comes after dozens of people were injured in a spate of acid attacks, with London being particularly affected by the incidents. ...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...act-conservatives-poisons-board-a7856041.html
 

GNC

King-Sized Canary
Joined
Aug 25, 2001
Messages
25,670
Likes
9,403
Points
284
Get a squiggly mouth effect and you can look like a discomfited character in The Beano.
 

GNC

King-Sized Canary
Joined
Aug 25, 2001
Messages
25,670
Likes
9,403
Points
284
I'm waiting for chocolate buttons eyebrows like Maya off of Space: 1999. We're eighteen years too late, but there's still time.
 

hunck

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Jul 13, 2011
Messages
3,568
Likes
3,816
Points
159
Location
Hobbs End
Here's another social media syndrome coming soon to your town: Screaming Like Goku I have no idea what Dragonball Z is but anyway..

events are popping up all over Facebook titled “Scream Like Goku”, encouraging people to gather at different areas around the country to - you keeping up? - scream like the legendary super Saiyan Goku from Dragonball Z.

If you don't know what a Goku scream sounds like, imagine doing an aggressive impression of a motorcycle accelerating.

Now imagine a dozen people doing that at once while standing on a circle.
 

Carse

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Jan 31, 2016
Messages
227
Likes
473
Points
64
What annoys me about videos and articles like this is the assumption that kids today are somehow stupid for not being familiar with whatever archaeic piece of tat they're presented with. Why should a child born in 2007 know what a cassette is for? Would we have expected a 10 year old in 1977 to know what a wax phonograph cylinder was for? What does any of this prove?
 

JamesWhitehead

Piffle Prospector
Joined
Aug 2, 2001
Messages
11,645
Likes
7,742
Points
309
Would we have expected a 10 year old in 1977 to know what a wax phonograph cylinder was for?
Frankly yes! Images of old technology were to be found everywhere in popular culture of the day. Kids also grew up in homes with much more legacy technology to hand. If their own parents did not have a wind-up gramophone, their grandparents probably did.

It's not the stupidity of children which is in question so much as the way their experience is filtered. Unless a book, film, toy or experience is explicitly aimed at their incompletely-formed pleasure-centres, it simply does not exist and they have no curiosity about it. :atom:
 
Last edited:

Mythopoeika

I am a meat popsicle
Joined
Sep 18, 2001
Messages
33,002
Likes
17,263
Points
309
Location
Inside a starship, watching puny humans from afar
What annoys me about videos and articles like this is the assumption that kids today are somehow stupid for not being familiar with whatever archaeic piece of tat they're presented with. Why should a child born in 2007 know what a cassette is for? Would we have expected a 10 year old in 1977 to know what a wax phonograph cylinder was for? What does any of this prove?
The 'tape' and 'record' symbology is all around them. Also, haven't they got access to old films and the Internet now? Don't their parents have a few of these items lying around?
 

poozler

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Mar 29, 2005
Messages
297
Likes
145
Points
59
Frankly yes! Images of old technology were to be found everywhere in popular culture of the day. Kids also grew up in homes with much more legacy technology to hand. If their own parents did not have a wind-up gramophone, their grandparents probably did.

It's not the stupidity of children which is in question so much as the way their experience is filtered. Unless a book, film, toy or experience is explicitly aimed at their incompletely-formed pleasure-centres, it simply does not exist and they have no curiosity about it. :atom:
I've experienced a bit of this in recent years, primarily in my previous work in schoolbook publishing. As an editor, I was told by publishers that "kids don't know what a 'barber' is [wtf?] so we can't use that word" or "kids don't want to see pictures of old stuff". It was maddening. I know that my young relatives are indeed interested in the past, and I certainly was when I was young (and still am). That said, I've actually had seemingly intelligent young adults say things to me like, "Why should I know about World War II. I wasn't born then" (as if *I* had been born then. Cheeeeesh!)
 

Yithian

Parish Watch
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
Messages
23,195
Likes
19,927
Points
309
Location
East of Suez
It's not the stupidity of children which is in question so much as the way their experience is filtered. Unless a book, film, toy or experience is explicitly aimed at their incompletely-formed pleasure-centres, it simply does not exist and they have no curiosity about it.
Nail on head, nutshell, etc.

But it's how this mindset is acquired that is important. My daughter knew how to turn on my smartphone and make it play her favourite videos at a very young age, but last night when I was patiently tuning a short-wave radio she was very interested in what each of the buttons did, why the numbers kept changing and what the long aerial was. Clearly the mission is to nurture and expand this natural curiosity.

The rule at Yith Towers is pretty much: TV, computer, phone only when supervised; she is never left unattended with one, so screen time is regulated. There's a point at which parents make a conscious decision to take the path of least resistance and allow phones to replace interaction with the other people in the room (or often the other room). What's weird is that you go to a dinner party or whatever and you find a roomful of kids, each with his own device, not interacting with one another at all (the fact is compounded by the fact that Miss Yith is the youngest of the children in our family and circle of friends and this malady gets worse with age). Well, that's not tolerated for long: I'll pluck her out and suggest a walk to the shop or some other diversion--I'd rather be a Nazi than father to a zombie. I used to complain about how my own over-active father would drag us the length and breadth of the country on family trips and have us go on country walks to poke around churches, old houses and castles, but, now I'm mature enough to appreciate the wider picture, I realise that such a childhood was a gift

Beyond technology, as poozler illustrates, it isn't only children becoming increasingly incurious--adults, too, are sinking into their own cluster of compartments and society is fragmenting as a result. There have always been opaque barriers of class, wealth and education that stifled mutual understanding, but at the same as these traditional fissures are deepening new ones are appearing: politics, of course, but also housing, faith, health, experience of crime; it's not so much 'Two Nations' as it is dozens of nations that know not one another. Part of this process is a greater sequestration in the present; not only are people less interested in the past, but they seem not to dream of possible futures with such vividity. There are visionaries dragging us forward, but it's in spite of a more general myopia.
 
Last edited:

Quake42

Warrior Princess
Joined
Feb 25, 2004
Messages
9,311
Likes
3,746
Points
219
Nail on head, nutshell, etc.

But it's how this mindset is acquired that is important. My daughter knew how to turn on my smartphone and make it play her favourite videos at a very young age, but last night when I was patiently tuning a short-wave radio she was very interested in what each of the buttons did, why the numbers kept changing and what the long aerial was. Clearly the mission is to nurture and expand this natural curiosity.

The rule at Yith Towers is pretty much: TV, computer, phone only when supervised; she is never left unattended with one, so screen time is regulated. There's a point at which parents make a conscious decision to take the path of least resistance and allow phones to replace interaction with the other people in the room (or often the other room). What's weird is that you go to a dinner party or whatever and you find a roomful of kids, each with his own device, not interacting with one another at all (the fact is compounded by the fact that Miss Yith is the youngest of the children in our family and circle of friends and this malady gets worse with age).
I think that's right, although as a tech obsessive I always feel slightly hypocritical saying that children's screen time should be limited when I spent so much time online etc myself! I'll also be honest and say that a friend's daughter being allowed to play on her Nintendo DS while she went for lunch with all the adults did lead to a more relaxed and enjoyable time for all.

We also had much of the same hysteria about television, before that the cinema and before that cheap paperbacks. This latest moral panic might end up looking rather the same from a few decades on.

*Shrugs*

Beyond technology, as poozler illustrates, it isn't only children becoming increasingly incurious--adults, too, are sinking into their own cluster of compartments and society is fragmenting as a result. There have always been opaque barriers of class, wealth and education that stifled mutual understanding, but at the same as these traditional fissures are deepening new ones are appearing: politics, of course, but also housing, faith, health, experience of crime; it's not so much 'Two Nations' as it is dozens of nations that know not one another. Part of this process is a greater sequestration in the present; not only are people less interested in the past, but they seem not to dream of possible futures with such vividity. There are visionaries dragging us forward, but it's in spite of a more general myopia.
This is definitely true. People are increasingly withdrawing into smaller and smaller groups and are increasingly intolerant or simply not understanding of those outside of them. Politics is the obvious one - I was taken by an author's Twitter thread yesterday when she described being unable to "forgive" Brexit voters and was met with approval from people who said they would now not speak to long term friends over the issue. I'm sorry, but if you ditch a friend on the basis of their vote in an election or referendum then you fail at being a human being. (Incidentally, I was dropped by a couple of long tern acquaintances over the issue as well). Then you have divisions on the basis of education; the sort of job you do; the sort of house you live in; etc etc. It's not healthy.

One noticeable effect of this fragmentation (which isn't entirely down to the internet) is the absence of shared national moments. When I was growing up everyone listed to Radio One - my generation and my parents' alike. We all watched the same TV programmes at night and then discussed them at school/work. There's nothing like that now - with the possible exception of large sporting events and news stories. The only things I can think of that have come close in recent years would be the London Olympics and the Diamond Jubilee.
 

Carse

Devoted Cultist
Joined
Jan 31, 2016
Messages
227
Likes
473
Points
64
This is just the old "Society is going to the dogs, it wasn't like this when I was a lad!" trope which people have been bleating out continuously since Aristotle was a boy. Kids aren't getting stupider or less curious, as anyone who has ever spent more than five minutes with your average 4 year old will be able to attest to.
 

Yithian

Parish Watch
Staff member
Joined
Oct 29, 2002
Messages
23,195
Likes
19,927
Points
309
Location
East of Suez
This is just the old "Society is going to the dogs, it wasn't like this when I was a lad!" trope which people have been bleating out continuously since Aristotle was a boy. Kids aren't getting stupider or less curious, as anyone who has ever spent more than five minutes with your average 4 year old will be able to attest to.
Two contested points:

1) It isn't four-year-olds that are the problem--it's the older children, teenagers and adults they become.
2) As I opined above: it isn't children becoming less curious so much as large swathes of society becoming less curious.

All opinion--drawn from dozens of strands, but opinion all the same.
 
Last edited:

huddsy

Junior Acolyte
Joined
Oct 15, 2017
Messages
34
Likes
24
Points
9
Somebody told me the other day that his 16 year old daughter didn't know how to tell the time using a clock with hands. He then went on to qualify that statement further, by saying "well she CAN tell the time using a clock, but has to stand and study it first". I was horrified!!!!! Mobile phones have a lot to answer for!
 
Top