The word Man is inherently confusing/sexist? Oh the huMANity!

Do you have any examples of feminists "espousing a more masculine presence within femininity?" Do you consider women taking on traditionally male occupations an example of this? That is the only thing I could think of that would make sense, unless you consider wearing pants a masculine attribute. You obviously have no understanding of the equality movements. For example, "Black Power" had/has nothing at all to do with power over white people or even to do with white people at all. It has everything to do with black people taking control over their own lives and defining themselves in their own terms. The philosophy of "Black Power" came about as a way to show self-determination. To promote black political representation in majority black areas. To promote self-esteem and self-reliance in black people whose entire lives, from the use of the word "Negro" to the type of education they were "allowed" to have, were defined by white people. Again, it is truly self-centered to believe that the phrase "Black Power" has to automatically mean anti-white or even concern white people except in the sense that they wanted to release themselves from being completely dominated by white society.On the other hand, "White Power" cannot ever mean the same thing unless we enter a time or society where the roles are reversed and white people are being truly oppressed by blacks or any other racial group. As it stands now, "White Power" is a term used for a baseless fear of losing power and hatred for people of other skin tones/religions/heritages.The same applies to feminism. Feminist women fight for the right to define their own lives as women, not as men say they should be defined. This includes word usage and representation in politics and cultural life.You can cry foul over the disparity of "Feminism" vs "Masculinism" and "Black Power" vs "White Power," but the terms indeed have inherent differences based on recent and current power structures. Taking pride in one's gender/heritage/what have you is acceptable and even encouraged, but the two latter terms carry alot of heavy baggage that needs to be lightened in order for them to be viewed as anything less than a (thinly) veiled attempt to destroy the gains of the equal rights movements.As for your example of the school supposedly "trying to abolish the demarcation from males and females by confusing little boys and little girls about their own sexuality, their own identity, their own selves with this gender norming movement," I don't know how you can gather that from an anti-homophobia class. That's what your link showed, nothing more, nothing less. It said not one iota about little girls and boys rehthinking their gender or even how they perceive gender. It did say alot about making them think twice about negative words used against LGBTQ kids in their school and trying to make kids think about their own differences and how much it hurts when someone attacks them for having them (especially when no one stands up for you). I don't know how you gathered "Gender Neutrality" from that. It had nothing to do with making people blind to the differences between the sexes.

Yes massa, I's be quiet so's not to upset you. I's jus keeps mah head down and agrees wit you so's you doesn't get angry.So you're essentially saying that black people having more power over their own lives or even having an equal playing field upsets too many white people and should be stopped immediately. What complete and utter horseshit. Again, examples please. First of all, those companies espousing racist ideologies should be exposed for what they are and changed or destroyed. That is what "working within the system to destroy the system" means.That said, this is why most "Black Power" adherents oppose affirmative action, at least in that sense. It implies something that the white establishment is "giving" to black people perpetuating the dependence of black people on others. Instead, black people doing for themselves and fighting blatant exclusion is what the fight is really about. Same with women. I don't want to be given a job because I am a woman, but because I am qualified and I educated myself and fought hard to get it. But if I am excluded because I am a woman, you can bet there'll be a fight.Many of the people involved in the feminist movement especially, but also in other movements, maintain a victim mentality and that is where affirmative action plays a huge role. It began as an attempt to expose the disparities in education and employment, but became another rut in the dependence cycle because instead of continuing the real fight against inequality, we took what little we got at first and became complacent, continuing to view ourselves as victims of the system (while being a part of the system) instead of fighting for real change. In what sense? And what does that have to do with the discussion of equal rights? I agree that any person given a job should meet the requirements for that job. I agree that a 120 pound woman should not be given a combat role that would require her to drag a wounded 200 pound comrade to safety in a combat situation. Same goes for the 120 pound man (Yes they exist!). However, that is not the argument. The argument stems from the COMPLETE exclusion of women from combat duties no matter their strength or ability. There are MANY women who can perform all combat roles (my ex, for example, is 5'11 and weighs about 175 of mostly muscle from lifelong athletics and is currently serving in Iraq. There are many women even larger and/or stronger than her, tho). The argument IS that duties/jobs should be given based on ability, not gender or race or sexuality or religion or lack thereof. The argument is to be able to determine your own future without being told "no" from the get go because you are the wrong gender or race or sexuality or nationality, etc. I'm not really sure what this means. Men are perfectly capable of being caregivers. What parents are you referring to? Yes, males and females ARE different, but their gender does not define their roles. Their ability and desire do. The differences ARE reason for celebration, but the lives of people should not be defined for them by someone else just because they are "uncomfortable" with the direction that that particular person chose. Did anyone ever accuse you of being a bigot simply because you are white? Or did they accuse you of being a bigot because you are a bigot (not saying you are, just posing a hypothetical). I am white and I know for a fact that some people my family history owned slaves. I have never been accused of being a bigot. Not even when I revealed that fact to a black person. I wasn't asked for an apology either. I get the feeling that you are talking about reparations. In that case, the "complainants" are asking for acknowledgement and apology from the government and in some cases compensation (or even just the fulfillment of the promise of "10 acres and a mule" in whatever terms are acceptable to both sides) from the government, not individuals.You may not be talking about that, but your assertion that people actually accuse you of racism simply for being white (although growing up white doesn't usually allow for being empathetic towards or even aware of most of the real black issues) smells of bullshit and a juvenile grasp of race relations. I might be a couple days too late, but I didn't see that title on the main page and I don't care much for trusting radio personalities (of whatever persuasion) to report news accurately. Could you post a link to the actual policy or even just the school or school board's website so I can verify this claim? Do you have any evidence for the assertion that anti-homophobia programs in schools make kids gay? It is possible that in a non-hostile climate more kids feel comfortable asserting the fact that they are gay, but these programs do not a homosexual make. In fact I would think that a kid who finally comes to understand what "fag" and "dyke" really mean and, realizing that it means them, will try to hide the fact (even in a less hostile environment) that they are gay to avoid such slurs.Case in point: me. I used those words as a kid, not really knowing what they meant. Once I found out what they meant, I realized that I was a "dyke" and tried to cover it up, even deny it, because I knew that I could be beat up for it just like the girl I knew in 8th grade that was put into the hospital because she dared to come out and "flaunt" her orientation (I don't say sexuality because it wasn't about sex for her at that point...it was who she was without ever having sex). it is NOT about "special privileges." It is about the fact that too many kids over too many years have been attacked by others because of their perceived or proclaimed sexuality and NO ONE stood up for them. Not the teachers or administration, not other students, sometimes not even their own parents! Telling kids that it is not OK to beat someone up for that or for any perceived difference or that you can get away with it is the message. Not that those kids are somehow special and that you should be gay so you can be special, too. It is not about punishing the thought that causes the crime. However, the crime would not have been committed in the first place if the hatred was not there (it's not a case of a mugging in progress and all of a sudden the perptrators decide to call someone a fag. Most victims of hate crimes are targeted specifically for their "difference" and would not occur otherwise). I've had many friends over the years who have been hospitalized (including an older straight cousin of mine who was attacked because he was perceived as gay when he just had the "glam rock" long hair and was walking with a male friend from a club) and I have had a few near misses myself. I don't necessarily agree with stronger sentences for hate crimes, but I do agree with the separate definition because it tells people that attacking someone based on gender or race or sexuality or nationality or religion WILL be punished when they were previously ignored, and in some cases even condoned, for so long.Just like all the good ol' boys who got away with murder in the South because the murder of a black person or a "race-traitor" was't deemed a big deal and they got off.Do not speak that of which you do not know.

quote:

---

How do homosexuals fit into that, I wonder?

---

Shows how little you actually know about homosexuals. Kinda like the line I get from time to time - "So who's the man in your relationship?" Answer: There is no man. Well, your link showed a program in middle schools, which you seem to be implying is OK. I would now like you to show that 5 year olds are being introduced to matters of homosexual SEX. Not "Heather has two mommies," or introducing to kids that some other kids have "non-traditional families," but SEX. Exploring cultural differences is and should be a part of elementary curriculum. Sex usually is not and should not be (except as you say in "upper elementary" where basic sex-ed is usually introduced). If you can show me of any elementary curriculum which tells kids about homosexual sex acts, I will shut my mouth forever on this topic. You can object to it all you want, but you should not be able to dictate what I should do based on your own personal objection as long as I am not hurting anyone (objectively) by doing what you find morally offensive.As for the homophobia, it has mostly always meant the hatred for, not fear of, homosexuals. The "phobia" was/is used to highlight the irrational reaction people had towards gays. Kinda like my own arachnophobia which is less a fear of spiders, in the sense that I feel that they will attack or hurt me, but in the revulsion that I feel when I see or encounter them. It is an irrational feeling that could probably be overcome with an education about and gradual association with spiders.Occasionally, however, the term is used sometimes in the "fear" context when it comes to those who attack homosexuals because they "fear" the homosexuality within themselves. That is not to say that everyone is homosexual or any such nonsense, but SOME of those who launch the most vehement attacks have conflicting feelings themselves. This can be used in the "hatred" context as well because that person can also hate that they have these feelings.I'm not one of those who says that "everyone is gay in some way," because I do not define others for them. Just as I do not want someone else to define me. But I have been witness to a few cases where someone who appeared to be very anti-gay turned out to be gay and it tortured them to admit it after years of denial and did many very self-destructive things to "prove" that they were straight. This seems to be a rare occurance and those who vehemently espouse this stance on homophobia are probably those who went through this particular stage.I've said it before and I'll say it again: There are extremists for every point of view.

Excuse me? That is the epitome of feminism. Equal pay for equal work and recognition for the traditionally "women's work" is the point of feminism at it's heart (among a few other things that I have previously mentioned). You have let disinformation about "feminazis" distort your whole outlook of feminists instead of reading and finding out for yourself what feminism is all about. It IS acceptable for women to open a cardoor for men. I call it common courtesy.It is not acceptable (to me) to hit anyone regardless of gender except in self-defense or defense of others. I'm not sure what you mean by "same way" but violence towards women by men happens all the time and it used to be acted upon by authorities by a shrug and a "she deserved it" mentality. Well, for starters, the women's suffrage movement had nothing to do with wage equality, but with voting rights for women (remember, women cannot concern themselves with the lives of decision making men and cannot make rational decisions for government).As for equal pay, this link is the first I dug up but there is more where that came from. That link is not the be all end all of this discussion, but I would like to have some evidence for this assertion and I will dig up more to provide a counter argument if necessary.Your view of feminism is highly distorted. Feminism is about choice, yes, even for those women who choose to "stay at home" and anyone who tells you otherwise is distorting the message. Including extremist feminists.

I stayed away from the specific discussion about the usage of "man" because I find it somewhat, but not wholly, silly.However, as this is the topic I will respond.My philosophy is that (and I have stated as much in the past few posts) that people should be able to define themselves as they see fit. That includes usage of words such as "womyn" "wimmin" etc. I do object to the attitude that all of society should adopt these words, but I can also see that making sure others understand what the alternative terminology means is sometimes tantamount to understanding the movement itself. For example, my statements about Black Power in a couple posts above. The original and basic meaning is one thing. What the term means from media representation and co-option from extremists is another.The usage of "womyn" and "Black Power" et al were originally self-defining terms. The adoption of them were meant to signify the letting loose of bonds, but were not meant to take over mainstream linguistics. Rather, the mentality of independence was meant to permeate society, especially and originally the oppressed, but, eventually, the oppressors as well. Some extreme factions co-opted the words or phrases used by revolutionaries and inadvertently (or in some cases purposely) made them anathema to the general public and, hence, many have an aversion to "PC" language when it originally had nothing at all to do with them. Like I said before, "Black Power" has nothing to do with white people personally. It is just white arrogance to think so. "Feminism" has nothing to do with men personally, it is just male arrogance to think so.These terms are defined by the struggle against the power structures by those who are struggling. Not by those who are watching it from the outside, no matter how much they think they know about it.That said, I rebelled against the usage of the term "man" and still do in many cases.I think that the words "chair" or "police officer" or "representative" are good examples of "feminism" in action. However, I still say "landlord" and "manning the phones" and other such phrases because they imply both sexes to me. But, I will never say "working man" I will instead say "working people" or "working families" depending on context because of the mental images suggested by such phrases.The study Schraf mentioned in another thread which mentioned "Industrial Man" does imply to me that men were doing all the work when in fact many women and children were toiling away in factories (and still are). The implication comes from the fact that rich white men were calling all the shots and making mounds of money on the backs of working people.I guess, to me, some of the definitions have more to do with class struggle (in many, but not all ways) than with all the other "divisive" lines.

I do not think that varying viewpoints within a certain ideology do not count, but I do look at where and how they came to certain conclusions.On the counts of feminism, I do not claim that whatever some women are claiming is not "true" feminism, just that I do not agree with their interpretation of feminism.However, my original point had not alot to do with arguments within movements, but with the interpretations of those "outside" the movements. Arguments within have alot to do with particulars (take scientists, for example) and definition of terms, but arguments against movements from without of the movements have much to do with how the movement is defined by the media or rumor often before the particulars are worked out by those trying to define the movement itself.Claiming that certain elements "don't count" is not my intent. My intent is to show that individuals can and do define terms for themselves, but that when they co-opt phrases that are created for reasons wholly different than what they use them for and then are adopted by the "mainstream" then the orginal meanings are lost in the shuffle.One must look at distortion of original intent. That is why I haven't said much about the whole "man" argument in this thread. I think that most cases of "man" are acceptable (i.e. manhole cover, manning the phones, mankind, descent of man, folly of man, etc), but I also think that certain other historical uses of man should be changed (i.e. chairman, fireman, policeman, congressman, etc). There are acceptable changes for words that blatantly imply a "man's" job and some that are completely neutral. The etymology of man has alot to do with common usage, but certain words do still carry a certain meaning. When did I ever imply that I cannot "shake" an extremist feminist phraseology? In the past few posts I have said that that ideologies are given power by their phrases (whether it be by the media or by their own adherents).I don't even feel that I have a traditional feminist ideology because I do not believe that women should view themselves as perpetual victims of a male system.I'm sorry if I did not make myself clearer, but I do not feel that the word "man" is deragotory on its face. I think I clarified this in other posts on this thread. My point is that those without "power" should have the right to define their lives and exposing certain negative terms ( sometimes minor, sometimes major) as biased (i.e. Negro - meaning "lazy, shiftless, ignorant, etc even if some people didn't automatically conjure up these notions, but many did) should be one of the main points of a social movement. Message 230 Here's the message link. I will not argue for Schraf's position, but I think that the terms "industrial Man" and "pre-historic man" inherently have different and significant ramifications (pre-historic man implies "mankind" whereas industrial man implies males). Your invocation of rich wives and kids only illustrates my argument of the necessary perpetuation of the system.I agree that my use of "rich white men" also negated the fact that women were in the picture. However, like you said, the women and children benefited from this structure but they were not in control over it (at least not in a strict sense).I indeed think that most struggles have alot to do with class struggle. Class has alot to do with power. There are many women in power throughout history. Their kids also gained power.The "right to work" was not an lower class issue. Lower class women always worked. So did their children. The "right to work" came along with the middle class and more education. Same with voting rights. Poor women were not too much concerned with poltics unless it directly concerned them. Just like poor men. Working 16 hour days does that to a person. Workers' rights and women's rights and then black rights stemmed from the same tree. Recognition of work and dignity. That's all it is in essence. Words and definitions play a huge role because they define the struggle, but some people get too caught up in semntics, which I believe your thread is all about.Edited by Jaderis, : fleshed out class struggle

Sorry it's taken me so long to respond, but my internet went kaput I'm sorry. That was a little extreme, but your implication that adding to black power (lower case, so I assumed you meant it in blacks having more power than they did and not "Black Power") only increases the animosity between the races and was, therefore, a bad idea just brought out the fighter in me. Actually I think that the philosophy of Black Power has alot of merit. Just like in many things, some individuals who used the philosophy for their own aims corrupted the original intent. However, not all of the "criminal elements" within the Black Panther Party were even real members of the party. There are declassified documents showing widespread CIA and FBI infiltration of the groups (among many others) and a huge disinformation campaign often turning members on each other (including lifelong friends) and government agents perpetrating or inciting many of the violent incidents attributed to the group as a whole.But I digress. As for the "outlet to combat the KKK and White Power movement," I think you have the intent wrong. As I previously stated, the philosophy of Black Power originated as a way for black people to claim power themselves through mass organizing, education and self-defense. In many ways it was a response to the degrading treatment of blacks by those groups, but it was not set up as an "outlet to combat" them in the sense that you seem to be using the term.I would agree that Dr. King was grieved at much of the violence because he knew that violence does not correct violence, but he was respected and loved by just about everyone in the black communities, including those who did not adhere to non-violence and he loved and respected (some of) them as well. Alot of the most major and seemingly seneseless violence occurred after Dr. King's death (beginning with the numerous riots that very night). This is important, to me at least, because of a story I once read.In Stokely Carmichael's autobiography ready for Revolution he describes the march from Hernando, AL to Montgomery which was organized to complete the "March Against Fear" originally undertaken by James Meredith (the same young man who had integrated Ol' Miss a few years earlier)in 1966, but was cut short when he was shot and nearly killed. Anyways, at the very start of the march, a police officer rushed the front line and blew past Carmichael to knock down Dr. King. Stokely (who had never before strayed from non-violence even when beaten and gassed) moved to go after the cop, but was held back by Dr. King. Later that night, much discussion was had about the responsibility of the non-violence movement and Stokely eventually said "Dr. King you can tell those good white folks out there that if they want non-violence to stay alive, they had better not touch you. Better not lay a hand on you. Because, Dr. King, the moment they touch you is the moment non-violence is finished, done." He goes on to say in the book that Dr. King understood that and accepted it.This says to me that while he may not have condoned the violence done in response to his death and beyond he would have understood it.In addition, much of the "rift" between Dr. King and the more "hot-headed" radical youth was hyped by the media and even by people supposedly within the movement (Roy Wilkins of the NAACP, for example, mouthing off to the media about tension in the movement and the possible abandonment of non-violence by Dr. King when armed men were allowed in to provide security for the organized registration of blacks (a 4/5 majority, none of whom could previously vote) in Lowndes County, AL in 1965). While I agree that these statements illustrate extreme sentiments within feminism (with which I do not agree), none of these quotes supports your original assertion that "they revel in the notion of spinning together masculintiy with feminity so that there is this stagnate, androgenous, gender neutral society."So, again, examples please. Because I should be able to work wherever I am qualified to work whether they "hate my guts" or not. Not really. And I did say "changed or destroyed." If a comapny or a government or what have you is unwilling to change its hateful and discriminatory policies and/or actions against the will of the people, they (the institution or even just the leadership) should be overthrown. One of the ways to try to change the system is by working within it in order to more readily expose these policies and be in a position to help enact these changes or overthrow if necessary. I already said that I do not agree with AA, for the most part. I also said in the part you quoted that most Black Power adherents do not, either for the very reasons you seem to. I wouldn't call AA racist, except in the sense that some of those who agree with it seem to imply that women and minorities "need" the extra help because of some inherent weakness. I do think, and I've said this before, that the enaction of AA policies was beneficial in exposing the disparities in employment and in some areas is still helpful today, but for the most part it is unnecessary at best and insulting at worst.As for EO, what a crock. I live in NYC and I can't tell you how many potential landlords have flat out told me that they do not rent to blacks or hispanics (those are the only two excluded races that have been expressed to me personally) and even a couple who have said they do not rent to "homosexuals" obviously not knowing that I was one. These people even told me that I could not get a roommate of that description. I've also previously worked for some employers in the restaurant industry who have told me that no matter how well a Mexican or a Haitian or a Bangladeshi speaks English or how able they are that they won't put one on the floor. That they belong in the kitchen or the dishroom. "Equal Opportunity" employers, all. I haven't experienced this in my current profession so far, but I'm sure it's out there. Thank you And while I agree with you to some extent, I think that some people (the new victims of which you speak) are just angry that we haven't taken what has been "given" to us and shut the hell up about it and they are crying foul. Not everyone who has a beef with the direction of the movements, mind you, but definitely some. Some people feel that the movement should "slow down" so as not to ask for too much too soon (including many within the movements), but that goes back to the whole "massa" bit I did in that we should not be asking, period. We should take what is ours (meaning our rights) and not stop to ask if it's OK with everybody else. Of course, this has to be done in a constructive way and many are not doing so and are "out of control" as you say. So we should just automatically exclude them because many will dropout (according to you most men drop out, too) and that it will cost the taxpayers too much money??? Holy crap, I can't believe I just read that! Men are built differently from one another as well. But not none. Why not give those women who can meet the demands of the job the opportunity to meet them? What's so hard about that? Asking a man to birth a child is so vastly different from a woman performing a demanding combat role and you know it. One can be trained for given the right starting characteristics, which some women possess. The other is just science fiction (so far ) Maybe you can't, but I sure can. You can prefer to take a man into combat all you want, but your personal preference (or even the preferences of men in general) should not automatically exclude a woman. I also would like to know statistics on the preference of female childcare providers. I agree that most are women, but I think it has more to do with machismo than outside preference in many cases (kinda like the ridicule many heap on male nurses, secretaries, etc) and probably lack of desire in other cases. No it's not borne out of reality, but out of the historical roles assigned to gender. The anger is directed more at that than people's perceptions. Perceptions can be changed. Say women are allowed in major combat roles tomorrow. Can you imagine that 100 years from now that people will perceive infantry as a "man's job?" Except for a few holdouts, probably not. If more men entered (notice I didn't say "allowed" this time?) traditionally female jobs, do you think that Robert DeNiro's disdain for Ben Stiller's profession in Meet the Parents will be as understood 100 years from now? Just think, most schoolteachers were female at the beginning of the last century. Now, the word schoolteacher does not automatically conjure up a young unmarried woman or old schoolmarm. Many men are teachers. A doctor is no longer assumed to be a man, nor is a senator or a judge or an astronaut or even an athlete. Think about that in terms of "perceptions borne from reality." Yes, the reality of the times, but not the reality of what could be. As we don't know and can only speculate, I would say numbers, yes. Percentage, no. Unless you want to count the fact that more people are openly gay than before due to less hostile environments (In this country at least, most of the hostility developed in the last century). However, I would say that before alot of society's knowledge or understanding (this was and still is a totally foreign concept to many), many homosexuals lived their lives without being recognized for what they were and there is no way to know who was gay or not.The doors that are opened allow young people to recognize themselves and allow others to treat homosexuals with respect, rather than hate. Sex is not, however, discussed with 5 year olds. Homosexual or otherwise. I knew I was different in elementary school and even had little kid infatuations over girlfriends of mine, but sex, of course, never entered my mind until I was a teenager, just like everyone else. It was then that I as able to define what I was. Sex with another girl was never presented to me as an option, but I knew that is what I desired. I never saw a movie with lesbians, never read a book about them, never met one (that I knew of), but I knew that I was one even before I ever heard the word lesbian.Kids do not hear about gay people and say "Well, gosh, that sounds great. I wanna be one!" It just doesn't happen that way. These programs promote respect for and an understanding for people who are different from them (or who are them in some cases). That is what most people who are against them seem to be afraid of. The claim of "making people gay" is just a fear tactic used to manipulate more people to be against them. You seem to have skimmed over the part in one of my previous posts where I said that the usage of the terms "fag" and "dyke" and "queer" are perfectly acceptable to most fagdykequeers when used in a non-malicious manner.And, yes, no slurs should be tolerated in schools, but all too often the antigay slurs and even the beatings are overlooked by the staff. It's somewhat better now than it was 10-20+ years ago, but it still happensThat last bit in your post about crackers and niggers is mostly answered by my bit about fagdykequeers, so I won't reiterate. Thank you. No we don't see eye to eye alot of the time, but I also appreciate a good debate and your posts often give me an opportunity to think of how to defend my beliefs and I most definitely appreciate that.

I never said I was unaware of sex or that kids in general are not or should not be. In fact, I'll go one step further and say that some kids are hyperaware and/or have a very strong sexual nature from a very early age.What I meant by my statement was that sexual desire or sex as something applicable to me never entered into the picture until I was a teenager. My infatuations were more like "I wanna be around this girl alot, but in a different way than my other girlfriends" and had nothing sexual about them until I entered adolescence. Of course, I played "doctor" and other types of fantasy play, but, IIRC, they were more outlets for curiosity and not sexual (as in desire) in nature.I don't know how much other kids were taught by their parents, but I was a very curious child and my parents were quite forthcoming in their answers to my many questions. I understood conceptually what sex was, with greater understanding as I progressed towards adolescence, but it wasn't applicable to me until I was older and the hormones started kicking in.My parents did a great job in that respect, but I know that not all parents do the same for their kids (granted, not every kid pummels their parents with the kinds of questions I did ). I don't think the elementary schools should necessarily pick up the slack in regards to detailed sexuality education (except maybe starting in 4-5th grade especially with the trend of earlier onset puberty we are seeing), but the "When two people love each other they..." kind and "Heather has Two Mommies" kind in the health and social science classes seem like an appropriate way to introduce these concepts to them. (For anyone who wants to jump down my throat regarding "Two Mommies," think about this. I never read fairy tales as a child and automatically jumped to "Sleeping Beauty and Prince Charming are gonna have sex now," did you? I don't think that 5 year olds are going to assume sex in any of these types of stories, either.)I am not against all sexuality education for younger kids, but, like many, I feel that the education should be age appropriate and voluntary (meaning for the parents). Where was I inconsistent? I never said that children are not sexual or unaware of sex, so how is my argument inconsistent? How is the "liberal" argument inconsistent? Even if I had said anything of the sort, how am I a spokeswoman for the liberal camp?