What in the hell are we teaching our kids!?

[Fern]

Well at least they're not learning math or science or some other useless shizz. God knows the USA doesn't need any more people knowledgeable in S.T.E.M. [/sarcasm]

Fern

 

[Spungo]

LOL free patriot.

I'm still suck on the first paragraph.

What did your kids learn in school today? Maybe that 2 + 2 = 5 or that the civil war was fought over slavery?

Um what else was the civil war fought over? The densely populated north, which was mostly white people, was mostly against slavery. The south, which was mostly black slaves who couldn't vote, had an entire economy based on slavery. Due to the south's policy of not needing white people, that region had extremely limited voting power. Unable to keep slavery alive through democracy, the south banded together and pulled something similar to Pearl Harbor or 9/11 by attacking Fort Sumter.

I think textbooks are funny. I have an old sociology textbook from 2007, it is filled with gems like "Projection of job growth circa 2007! for the next decade!" With the east and west coast posting +10% job growth and the mid west and Texas posting -10% or thereabouts. It turned out to be the exact opposite. Actually just about every sidebar and tidbit of interesting wisdom was wrong. No wonder they made a new version. Check out some old textbooks, especially ones in fluffy areas of academia, sociology, psych, etc.

Bad conclusions can still be useful if the logic is sound.

wait wait wait....VAGINA is WHERE?

It's a body part? I thought it was just another way of saying woman. I call my coworkers vaginas every day.

It has been my experience that the "sheltered" girls were the ones that would wild out the moment they got out of the nest. Hell when I was younger my friends and I would always try to find the good Catholic girls that went to an all girl school their entire lives because they were most definitely the easiest. Hell my buddies and I would trade them around the click. Obviously not all were like that but it was far far more likely that you would find one from a sheltered life versus one that went to regular public school and didn't have a sheltered childhood.

This is very true. The kids who drink until they black out are the ones who are discovering alcohol for the first time.

 

[Fern]

I'm still suck on the first paragraph.

Um what else was the civil war fought over? The densely populated north, which was mostly white people, was mostly against slavery. The south, which was mostly black slaves who couldn't vote, had an entire economy based on slavery. Due to the south's policy of not needing white people, that region had extremely limited voting power. Unable to keep slavery alive through democracy, the south banded together and pulled something similar to Pearl Harbor or 9/11 by attacking Fort Sumter.
-snip-

Fern

 

[Kadarin]

Guess what.. My two kids in high school (one of them a sophomore - my daughter). Well adjusted, both are honor role, play sports, have not/are not having sex.. let alone discussing *ahem* "from behind" and bondage.

You will be the LAST person to know if they do.

It's jerkoffs like you that have completely given up on morality and your duty as a parent to protect your kids that propagate this problem to the point it is now accepted as the norm!.. Disgusting! And the fact that we've become so socially numb to it all is saddening.. you my friend are a shining example..

Since when did "protecting your kids" mean preventing exposure to any and all things sexual?

 

[zinfamous]

Fern

OK guys...please don't try to tell me that the Civil War was fought over "state's rights" instead of slavery. We all know the single "state's right" that was at issue. This same institution also happened to be single largest economic structure in the country at the time; so yeah, it was a big issue.

I mean, I went through Civil War history in the south, and this "The Civil War was far more complicated than slavery!" story was passed on me as well. I swallowed it, sure; but the reality is that every single "complicated issue" was tied to slavery, and slavery only.

 

[ch33zw1z]

sophmore, in this day and age, probably already doing the dp. go interwebz.

 

[Fern]

OK guys...please don't try to tell me that the Civil War was fought over "state's rights" instead of slavery. We all know the single "state's right" that was at issue. This same institution also happened to be single largest economic structure in the country at the time; so yeah, it was a big issue.

I mean, I went through Civil War history in the south, and this "The Civil War was far more complicated than slavery!" story was passed on me as well. I swallowed it, sure; but the reality is that every single "complicated issue" was tied to slavery, and slavery only.

No, every single issue was not tied to slavery.

Taxes were a big part.

IIRC, federal troops marched twice on Charleston which had refused to pay taxes to the federal govt. IIRC, this was leading up to the civil war.

Heck, the South and North had been at odds over taxation since Washington was President. The feds enacted a whiskey tax. Guess where that industry was exclusively located? That was our first, sorta-kinda civil war (Whiskey rebellion).

Then there's a bunch more I won't go into here about economics etc involving the cotton and shipping industries (Northern rules screwing the South)

And Lincoln didn't campaign to abolish slavery, merely propose that it wouldn't be expanded to other states. And states began seceding before Lincoln took office.

But one might ask why would the South secede over slavery when most people didn't even own a slave (they were quite expensive). Slavery wasn't useful much unless you had a cotton or sugar cane plantation. No, the average person was already angry at the North and when the rich plantation owners wanted to secede many average non-slave owning people were happy to go along because of other reasons I mentioned above.

And another reason that I don't think gets mentioned enough is the cultural differences. Most people in the South were of Celtic origin and the North English. There is a long, long history of hatred and resentment between these two. I'm Celtic and could explain, but won't bother.

Fern

 

[SheHateMe]

Sounds like some pretty passionate sex.



By the way, getting fucked from behind doesn't always mean Anal sex.

 

[OverVolt]

Let's equate missed projections to documented history.

I never saw the context in the book myself. It caught the attention of 5-6 people i know they were discussing it. It didnt occur to me to question them over it. Seemed plausible to me i've seen alot of dumb textbooks.

 

[Angry Irishman]

Sounds like some pretty passionate sex.



By the way, getting fucked from behind doesn't always mean Anal sex.

You're right, sometimes is just the same as reading through these type of posts.

 

[Fayd]

LOL.. figured that was coming.. So smutty literature from the 10th grade English class sensationalizing anal sex and bondage equates to "discussing sexuality" with your daughter?

Why don't we just hand out 50 Shades of Gray to 4th graders then and call it good?

Oh, and does it really matter which outlet decided to pick up the story and run with it? I suppose it would only be credible if it was being covered by the Young Turks or the Daily Kos?

Original article came from here:
http://eagnews.org/10th-grade-class-reads-erotic-novel-recommended-by-common-core-proponents/

pretty sure that was describing doggy style, not anal.

not that that makes it more appropriate for school, but whatever.

 

[SheHateMe]

OP how would you rather have it.

1) You keep your kids in the dark about sex and you wait for them to go off to College for it to hit them in the face. Who knows, maybe your daughter will be that girl doing all the slutty shit at the parties because she doesn't know better...

2) Your kids learn about sex and how to be responsible while they're teens so they know how to respect themselves once they make it out to College where people suck and fuck all over the place.

*Protip, just because you're somebody's dad doesn't mean you know if your kids are having sex or not. What are you going to do? Take your daughter to get a Pap smear to find out?



Also, I took sex ed in Middle school. So, your outrage is a bit ridiculous.

 

[shadow9d9]

Correct. However, parents have every right to decide what is age appropriate for their children. I would suggest that most parents would object to this content being part of the curriculum in their child's school.

I'm no prude, but my daughter would not be going to a school that has this on the reading list. I'm all for sex education, but there is a distinct difference between the birds and the bees and this content.

A teenager isn't a child.

If you want to shield them from the world and create a monster, you'll have to keep them home, like you said.

 

[shadow9d9]

Every year it gets worse and worse. The so-called standards are dropped and society gets more and more immoral. The religious people go to church for an hour or two on sundays yet they behave just like the non-Church-goers rest of the time. The priests and bishops and other religious leaders just want to spread their church's power. The scientists are too busy having intellectual arguments with each other with little to show for it. Just babbling

So religion is messed up and science is only one dimensional. So where does one turn to? Can it be that he has no one to turn to but himself? Maybe it's time.

As for schools, they are just a product of society. If society lacks total respect for the human and his/her body then schools will be that way also. Just like politics: they are a reflection of society. A corrupt society like ours will always produce corruption in politics.

Going to church just means you are a gullible fool. It certainly has no relation to morality.

 

[shadow9d9]

You're Goddamn right I am.. Judge Jury and Executioner when it comes to what content is being fed to my kids! And it's out of respect for the fact that they ARE JUST KIDS!

A 10th grader is not "just kids" you imbecile.

 

[shadow9d9]

Sex should be respected and held in high regard because it is something very special...and it's NOT for my kids (not yet)

1. Why? Because you say so?

2. It is their lives, not yours. They might have already had sex or sexual interaction. It has nothing to do with you and there is nothing wrong with doing so.

 

[Angry Irishman]

1. Why? Because you say so?

2. It is their lives, not yours. They might have already had sex or sexual interaction. It has nothing to do with you and there is nothing wrong with doing so.

I thought I was angry....you've got me beat by a long shot. Did you watch Footloose a lot when you were younger and learn to rebel against your parents and the man early on?

 

[mikeymikec]

Here's what I know.
The school is teaching this smut to grade schoolers. I suppose you approve?

I'm pretty sure that's been said about sex education before as well. "OMG! A woman should learn about this ten minutes beforehand from her mother on wedding night!"

I'd have a problem with sex ed classes consisting only of reading a couple of smutty passages and the standard "here's how it's done" video. If they spend a decent amount of time teaching about consent and relationships as well, (and most importantly answering questions from the class), I'm fine with it.

Discussing sexual manoeuvres (as part of such a class as I've described) has as much to do with morality as discussing how a nuclear reaction works. I would rather that my teenage kids learn sex ed from me and from school rather than from the Internet and from each other (the last two are of course inevitable, but would you prefer those to be their main source of information, fuelled by a need to be "grown up and adult / experienced"?).

Western society has an awful lot of negative influences on the self-respect and notions of teenagers growing up. You don't counter that by pretending it isn't there, but by the opposite: Useful information and lots of it.

You will be the LAST person to know if they do.

Especially if he has to "clear his throat" in embarrassment first before mentioning "naughty words".

 

[Ben90]

Guess what.. My two kids in high school (one of them a sophomore - my daughter). Well adjusted, both are honor role, play sports, have not/are not having sex.. let alone discussing *ahem* "from behind" and bondage. Don't turn up hardcore when they google because I monitor their content and computers are used in the common areas of our house.

It's jerkoffs like you that have completely given up on morality and your duty as a parent to protect your kids that propagate this problem to the point it is now accepted as the norm!.. Disgusting! And the fact that we've become so socially numb to it all is saddening.. you my friend are a shining example..

Have fun being a 35YO Grandpa raising a baby again after your teenage daughter gets knocked up because they read this book and thought it would be a good idea to try. Wish HER luck for me making it through high-school and let alone college and on to a productive adult live. Not that it can't be done - but it's gonna be about 100x tougher.

But ha.. fuck it, no reason to get be concerned about my kid's education.. Too easy just to look the other way. I'm a relic.. blah blah..

There is nothing immoral about sex. Grow up.

You also have NO IDEA if they are having sex or not. You are completely naive if you think you have a clue!

Yea, he could have left it at honor roll and whatever, but saying he knows for a fact his kids are virgin just dismisses the entire post.

 

[1prophet]

LOL free patriot.

So how old should a girl be before we are allowed to discuss sexuality with her? Married?

We should psychologically transform women so they can have their fun first just like the guys with no shame, only then will women be truly equal to men.

http://www.everyjoe.com/2013/08/20/play/slane-girl-photos-uncensored-eminem-concert/

http://vimeo.com/68714449

Then all you liberals can really stick it to those prudish conservatives when you finally have your societal victory in your Brave New World.

 

[mikeymikec]

We should psychologically transform women so they can have their fun first just like the guys with no shame, only then will women be truly equal to men.

Then all you liberals can really stick it to those prudish conservatives when you finally have your societal victory in your Brave New World.

Straw man, rant, no actual declaration of opinion... if you can come up with a coherent point to put forward for discussion, let us know.

 

[IGBT]

fundamental operating principal of Common Core: They are not your kids.

 

[Tom]

No, every single issue was not tied to slavery.

Taxes were a big part.

IIRC, federal troops marched twice on Charleston which had refused to pay taxes to the federal govt. IIRC, this was leading up to the civil war.

Heck, the South and North had been at odds over taxation since Washington was President. The feds enacted a whiskey tax. Guess where that industry was exclusively located? That was our first, sorta-kinda civil war (Whiskey rebellion).

Then there's a bunch more I won't go into here about economics etc involving the cotton and shipping industries (Northern rules screwing the South)

And Lincoln didn't campaign to abolish slavery, merely propose that it wouldn't be expanded to other states. And states began seceding before Lincoln took office.

But one might ask why would the South secede over slavery when most people didn't even own a slave (they were quite expensive). Slavery wasn't useful much unless you had a cotton or sugar cane plantation. No, the average person was already angry at the North and when the rich plantation owners wanted to secede many average non-slave owning people were happy to go along because of other reasons I mentioned above.

And another reason that I don't think gets mentioned enough is the cultural differences. Most people in the South were of Celtic origin and the North British. There is a long, long history of hatred and resentment between these two. I'm Celtic and could explain, but won't bother.

Fern

The states that seceded did so to "preserve their way of life" which was people owning other people. And your point about the southern common people going along with slave owners isn't right. First of all lots of common people owned slaves, they weren't expensive anymore than a cow is expensive. And production using slaves was the basis for the economy so it benefited more than the rich.

Of course there were other issues. There always are. The issue that led to such drastic action as secession was SLAVERY.

It's true the North didn't fight because of slavery, they were preserving the Union. And I'm not saying that was just some high and mighty principle, people with vision could see a United States would be a more effective economic and political world player than a divided middle North American continent.

You're also off base on the Celtic vs British population differences. You could be right about the South, I guess if you don't consider Africans as people, but by 1860 the North wasn't "British" by any stretch. Welsh, Irish, German, Swedish, even Italian and Russian. Not to mention African.

 

[kia75]

OK guys...please don't try to tell me that the Civil War was fought over "state's rights" instead of slavery. We all know the single "state's right" that was at issue. This same institution also happened to be single largest economic structure in the country at the time; so yeah, it was a big issue.

I mean, I went through Civil War history in the south, and this "The Civil War was far more complicated than slavery!" story was passed on me as well. I swallowed it, sure; but the reality is that every single "complicated issue" was tied to slavery, and slavery only.

States rights is something that is used when the nation is against you, and the forgotten when the nation is for you.

The south certainly weren't trumpeting States Rights when the Fugitive Slave Act stating the south could go to any northern state and drag black people back if they were thought to be escaped slaves.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
You're also off base on the Celtic vs British population differences. You could be right about the South, I guess if you don't consider Africans as people, but by 1860 the North wasn't "British" by any stretch. Welsh, Irish, German, Swedish, even Italian and Russian. Not to mention African.

Italians didn't show up until after the civil war was over. Their immigration mostly picked in the 1900's: http://bancroft.berkeley.edu/collections/italianamericans/timeline_immigration.html

Germans weren't really here until after the civil war. Their immigration picked up 1880 etc.
http://www.loc.gov/rr/european/imde/germchro.html

Irish were here but they were pretty repressed at that time anyway.

Swedish? really:

When the American Civil War broke out, ending the pioneer period of Swedish immigration, the federal Census recorded some 18,000 Swedish-born persons in the United States.

http://www.augustana.edu/general-information/swenson-center-/swedish-american-immigration-history

Russian? The few that were here before the civil war were in Alaska, owned at that time by Russia.
http://www2.needham.k12.ma.us/nhs/cur/kane98/kane_p3_immig/Russia/russia.html

Fern