Ironically, you *are* defending the tsunami of 1950s prudishness that's sweeping Europe and America lately. In case you haven't noticed, loud-mouthed raving lunatics supposedly defending children have been calling for a ban on recreational equipment in playgrounds because children might injure themselves. Goodbye, swings - kids might break their necks. Goodbye, slides, they might result in paraplegia.
Ban smoking from films - kids might want to start smoking. Ban images of breast-feeding, children might get over-sexed (yes, this is actually being argued).
It's bloody ridiculous, and by taking this woman seriously, you are promoting this kind of latter-day Victorianism. ==========================
1) What Holly said.
2) If the finer points of the argument leave you unmoved, it could be because you're somewhat fond of engaging in a very similar brand of fervid poo flinging yourself. ====
The only 'finer point' there is, is the fact that teachers get bothered by innumerable meddling idiots. The main point is the fact that society has become completely schizophrenic, trying to keep children away from anything resembling the real world, while at the same time making that world ever more superficial and callous. Why do you think there are so many cases of alcohol abuse amongs under-18s? Why do you think there are so many cases sexual abuse amongst teenagers? Because they aren't given a chance to deal with things like alcohol and sexuality in a normal way - they get to see just two things, the prudish-Victorian taboo-approach, with a few embarassed words by dad and the clear message that the topic is never to be discussed again on the one hand, and the MTV-version with drunk half-naked women treated like slaves with "this is cool" stamped all over it in shiny red letters.
thomasquinn 32989 · Member since
Holly2003 wrote: ThomasQuinn wrote: So, essentially, what you're saying is that anyone who thinks that this teacher made a stupid decision (regardless of whether this was done under pressure from whomever - it wouldn't change the character of the act itself in the least), lacks empathy. That is rather lacking in nuance, which is rather ironic, seeing how you are accusing Brian of a lack in nuance.
No, I'm saying Brian often lacks a sense of balance and proportion. I'm not sure why you want to make this into some sort of wider issue.
======
The teacher made it into a wider issue by going public with the statement that she considers the musical too sexy and "inappropriate" for children. That is not for her to decide. If she'd have just cancelled the trip and left it at that, it'd just be a nasty call. Now, she's made it into a matter of public morality, all by her own decision.
GratefulFan · Member since
ThomasQuinn wrote:
The teacher made it into a wider issue by going public with the statement that she considers the musical too sexy and "inappropriate" for children. That is not for her to decide. If she'd have just cancelled the trip and left it at that, it'd just be a nasty call. Now, she's made it into a matter of public morality, all by her own decision. ===========================
There is nothing in the article that makes it clear that the teacher herself 'went public'. On the contrary, organizations like schools rarely seek attention for controversial decisions likely to annoy parents and the wider community. Any number of people would have been aware of the incident and able to describe the circumstances to the paper.
You or I disagreeing with her decision doesn't make it a 'nasty call'. It's not unreasonable for a school to decline to take the responsibility of unilaterally exposing 9 to 12 year olds to the degree of sexual innuendo that is in fact in WWRY. There is a perfectly good argument to be made that a school could reasonably, if cautiously, view that as a parental decision.
Regardless, the point all along is that she didn't deserve to be dealt with that way by Brian May. It's not about what anybody thinks of the quality of her call, it's about her right to have made a small local decision about 150 children under her care without being bullied and embarrassed by the major figurehead of the entire international production.
Sebastian · Member since
This is what I'd tell the teacher in question: 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.' A famous quote NOT said by Voltaire. http://www.sporcle.com/games/smreidy113/misquotes
AlexRocks · Member since
Just to clarify something that is VERY upsetting to me and that is when "What the fuck?!!!" is declared it is with a comma most importantly but to show hysterical passion only then does it ALSO include the exclamation marks. Ahem.
thomasquinn 32989 · Member since
GratefulFan wrote: ThomasQuinn wrote:
The teacher made it into a wider issue by going public with the statement that she considers the musical too sexy and "inappropriate" for children. That is not for her to decide. If she'd have just cancelled the trip and left it at that, it'd just be a nasty call. Now, she's made it into a matter of public morality, all by her own decision. ===========================
There is nothing in the article that makes it clear that the teacher herself 'went public'. On the contrary, organizations like schools rarely seek attention for controversial decisions likely to annoy parents and the wider community. Any number of people would have been aware of the incident and able to describe the circumstances to the paper.
You or I disagreeing with her decision doesn't make it a 'nasty call'. It's not unreasonable for a school to decline to take the responsibility of unilaterally exposing 9 to 12 year olds to the degree of sexual innuendo that is in fact in WWRY. There is a perfectly good argument to be made that a school could reasonably, if cautiously, view that as a parental decision.
Regardless, the point all along is that she didn't deserve to be dealt with that way by Brian May. It's not about what anybody thinks of the quality of her call, it's about her right to have made a small local decision about 150 children under her care without being bullied and embarrassed by the major figurehead of the entire international production. ====
A) I do find it a nasty call - it assumes that 9-12 year-olds need to be screened from sexuality. Except in seriously backward circles, it is now the accepted opinion that this kind of over-protective approach is counter-productive: you tell a 12-year-old boy that he can't go see a musical he has been promised because it's too "sexy", and he will, 99 times out of a 100, assume that it must be really, really cool if he isn't allowed to see it, and if "sexy" is the reason for that, then it is probably worthwhile for him to look into that topic, with obvious results. Bottom line: it's these kinds of things that give kids ideas they wouldn't otherwise have gotten, way more than any musical could have. B) Brian gets his (admittedly not very good) musical pushed into the quasi-pornographic corner (even if this wasn't the intent of the teacher in question, this is the effect), and he isn't allowed to respond? I beg to differ. C) Behind a thick wall of rhetoric, you are effectively arguing that prudishness is the right way of dealing with kids about to hit puberty. Sex offenders will want to thank you, I'm sure.
Holly2003 · Member since
And I'm sure village idiots will want to thank you for making them look smart in comparison ...
GratefulFan · Member since
ThomasQuinn wrote:
C) Behind a thick wall of rhetoric [.....] Sex offenders will want to thank you, I'm sure. ==========================
Hilarity: 1 Self-awareness: 0
If Brian wants to respond to negative reception to WWYR he can choose to be professional or he can choose to be something more like an obnoxious, demeaning jerk. It then follows that people will think "well that was professional", or "what an obnoxious demeaning jerk".
