mathanxiety Wed 25-Nov-09 21:04:54
"Yes, I believe in the interest of consistency and fairness to all the children, as well as fairness to people who are denied the rights that heterosexual people take for granted, nothing like this should be mentioned. How sad might a child be, knowing he or she is gay or a lesbian, to hear a straight teacher looking forward to his or her wedding, knowing that he or she might never enjoy that right? There are plenty of places in the world where no such right exists, and who can tell if a child might end up living in, say, Wyoming? How sensitive is it to talk about your private relationships to children whose own lives might or might not include a father or a mother, or whose parents might be fighting or contemplating divorce?"
So the implication is that children must be protected against knowing that any adults they come into contact with might have something enjoyable in their lives, just in case they miss out?
What about the teacher who mentions that he used to play football in a real team? Or who tells the children that he thinks sport is great fun? Not allowed in case it upsets a disabled child? Or the teacher who sings at assembly? Forbidden in case a tone deaf child is saddened? The mere sight of a motherlike authority figure might upset a child who has just lost her Mum? And a teacher must on no account wear a nice outfit because one of the children may end up living in a country where they have to be heavily veiled.
You're not serious, are you?
I am glad that my children have not been exposed to this kill-joy attitude: they are allowed to know that their teachers are real people who live in the real world. And that this necessarily means that they may have things that dcs might never have.