PDA

View Full Version : One for Hyde



Mike Cash
19-02-06, 15:44
Thought you might be interested in seeing this news article:

http://www.heraldsun.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5478,18194460%5E2862,00.html

RockLee
19-02-06, 15:53
Oh boy, soon it's a fashion statement ! This is the I was worried about.

It seems these days people are trying to promote being gay or lesbian, it's your own free choice for crying out loud.On tv there are nothing but commercials that almost want to persuade you to be gay because it's cool! :okashii:

Kinsao
19-02-06, 23:02
Well, I've got a t-shirt that says 'I like men'.......... :p

Tsuyoiko
20-02-06, 12:47
My favourite has this on it:

http://www.itvmovieclub.com/itv/images/film_classifications/18.gif

Kinsao
20-02-06, 13:29
I have a feeling the issue arose because of the appropriateness or otherwise of her slogan to the school photo day, rather than whether she was a lesbian or not. :clueless:

Tsuyoiko
20-02-06, 14:19
You're probably right Kinsao - which is one reason why most schools in the UK have uniforms I suppose.

Hyde_is_my_anti-drug
20-02-06, 14:55
Wow, talk about baiting someone. This is low even for you dear Mike.

For years straights have been allowed to wear shirts that refer to their orientation. Why should gays not be able to do the same? Men are able to wear shirts stating how much they like woman why can't woman do the same?
And it's not about converting, it's about freedom of speech. I hate that the USA claims to have free speech and yet is imposing censorship on the sheep-like masses.
Girls can wear a shirt that says, "guy wanted" but can they wear one that says, "girl wanted"? Oh, of course not. The hell? Seriously, it's no different. If you think those who wear gay pride shirts are trying to convert people then you have to realize that can be flipped as well. I could say that straights are trying to make everyone straight. :wary:

No-name
20-02-06, 16:54
Schools do have an obligation to maintain order and minimize disruption as well as to preserve the free expression of the students.

As a high school assistant principal I would have asked her to take the t-shirt off for the picture. (Well not take it off, that might be worse... change it would probably be better.) The picture is not the proper forum for free speech... it has another purpose. What happens in our photos is wording on all shirts and any errant hand signs and middle fingers get digitally edited out, so I may not actually have to ask as the "message" would get removed in the photo studio.

I asked a girl not to wear her "Cheerleaders Suck" T-shirt because it was disrupting school activities. This T-Shirt skirts the edge of the dress code, but if it prompted excessive responses from other students, I too would as that it be replaced. But it does not offend me, nor do I feel it is overtly provocative. Kids cannot wear sexually explicit messages, images that promote guns, drugs, tabacco, alcohol, or anything that is gang related. Sharp spikes, simulated bullets, certain number/text combinations, baggy and/or saggy pants, revealing clothing, muscle shirts, chains, mid drifts and tank tops...All those would constitute a disruption of the educational process.

Kinsao
20-02-06, 17:04
Yeah, I think it was more the fact that she had a 'sex-related' slogan on her tshirt that bothered them, rather than the sexual orientation thing.

Tsuyoiko
20-02-06, 17:11
Wow, talk about baiting someone. This is low even for you dear Mike.It's interesting how your perception of Mike's intention with this thread is so different from mine. I thought he was doing something sweet by starting a thread that he thought might interest you - especially as he rarely starts threads. It never occurred to me that he was trying to provoke you.

Hyde_is_my_anti-drug
20-02-06, 17:46
You call this "sweet"? Well, that certainly is another way of looking at it. But my statement still stands.

Oh, and wearing a shirt stating one is a lesbian is not being sexually explicit, promoting guns, drugs, smoking, alcohol etc. Therefore I see no valid reason for asking a student to wear a different shirt for a picture. That is infringing on free speech. Would you ask them to switch shirts if it said, "No one knows I'm straight?" No. Double standard.

Tsuyoiko
20-02-06, 17:51
You call this "sweet"? Well, that certainly is another way of looking at it. But my statement still stands.Maybe. I actually think Mike is quite fond of you. :-)

Hyde_is_my_anti-drug
20-02-06, 17:52
*raises eyebrow* I would certainly hope not.

No-name
20-02-06, 17:54
Actually for the photo I would ask someone to change a shirt that says "no one knows I am straight." and like I said, if that shirt cause unnecessary disruption during the school day, it would have to go.

Hyde_is_my_anti-drug
20-02-06, 17:59
Maybe you would but I seriously doubt anyone else would. :wary:

strongvoicesforward
20-02-06, 18:01
Like Hyde, I, too, saw it as baiting. Why should that story be, "One for Hyde," just because Hyde is a lesbian? Just because Hyde is a lesbian, does that mean all things "lesbian" are "one for her?"

Why not put the article on a thread with a title without Hyde`s handle affixed to it and ask for people`s opinion on it. That way Hyde can comment freely if she wants rather than having a "megaphone" announcement to her. What if I were to post handles in a number of religious threads aimed directly at a particular member? I am guessing that would have gotten the quick whip of censorship. wink wink ;-) Some of you know what I am talking about.

Kinsao
20-02-06, 18:02
I agree with Sabro. Personally I'm pretty sure if I'd worn my 'I like men' shirt for my school pic, I would have been asked to change out of it. That's not sexually 'explicit' but... well, rules for school are known to be more restrictive and 'prudish' than for the outside world, so unfortunately we have to deal with it!

Hyde_is_my_anti-drug
20-02-06, 18:06
Like Hyde, I, too, saw it as baiting. Why should that story be, "One for Hyde," just because Hyde is a lesbian? Just because Hyde is a lesbian, does that mean all things "lesbian" are "one for her?"
Why not put the article on a thread with a title without Hyde`s handle affixed to it and ask for people`s opinion on it. That way Hyde can comment freely if she wants rather than having a "megaphone" announcement to her. What if I were to post handles in a number of religious threads aimed directly at a particular member? I am guessing that would have gotten the quick whip of censorship. wink wink ;-) Some of you know what I am talking about.
Thank yoooooooooooou, SVF-san! Seriously, Mike, you did not have to put my name in the title. Putting it there is clearly a bait to get me to reply.

strongvoicesforward
20-02-06, 18:18
I agree with Sabro. Personally I'm pretty sure if I'd worn my 'I like men' shirt for my school pic, I would have been asked to change out of it. That's not sexually 'explicit' but... well, rules for school are known to be more restrictive and 'prudish' than for the outside world, so unfortunately we have to deal with it!

Having to "deal with it" does not mean it is right or even justifies it. Sometimes violating something that is an unjust thing is the best way to destroy that which is unjust.

Hyde_is_my_anti-drug
20-02-06, 18:24
Exactly. We shouldn't have to grit our teeth and take it just because "that's the way it is"

No-name
20-02-06, 18:42
I did think Mike wanted your input on this... I certainly would be interested in what you think...is that a bad thing?

strongvoicesforward
20-02-06, 18:48
Thank yoooooooooooou, SVF-san! Seriously, Mike, you did not have to put my name in the title. Putting it there is clearly a bait to get me to reply.

Yes, he could have made a title without your handle on it and then he could have just PMed to ask you your opinion on it if he wanted it. There was no need to put your handle on the title to get you to respond and if I were to put a "mod`s" handle on a title with a link to "forum censorship" or a "Christian`s" handle on a thread title with links to "anti-Christian stuff," it wouldn`t be tolerated. The only way I could see if there is no hypocracy would be for a mod, once they see this thread title, would be to go back and strike your name from it.

Let`s see if they do. I am prophesying that they won`t. But, I do hope I am a bad prophet.

Hyde_is_my_anti-drug
20-02-06, 18:50
I did think Mike wanted your input on this... I certainly would be interested in what you think...is that a bad thing?
If that is the case then I guess he missed an important news flash from me.
If he wanted my impute he could have put something in his post not the title. That's just tacky and plain bad taste and it is calling the person out which is rude.


Yes, he could have made a title without your handle on it and then he could have just PMed to ask you your opinion on it if he wanted it. There was no need to put your handle on the title to get you to respond and if I were to put a "mod`s" handle on a title with a link to "forum censorship" or a "Christian`s" handle on a thread title with links to "anti-Christian stuff," it wouldn`t be tolerated. The only way I could see if there is no hypocracy would be for a mod, once they see this thread title, would be to go back and strike your name from it.
Let`s see if they do. I am prophesying that they won`t. But, I do hope I am a bad prophet.
Again, thank you.

No-name
20-02-06, 18:58
Sounds fair enough.

My name has been used in thread titles and it doesn't bug me. Your suggestion is probably better.

Hyde_is_my_anti-drug
20-02-06, 19:00
Well, I'm glad that it doesn't bother you personally.

Kinsao
20-02-06, 19:48
Having to "deal with it" does not mean it is right or even justifies it. Sometimes violating something that is an unjust thing is the best way to destroy that which is unjust.

Exactly. We shouldn't have to grit our teeth and take it just because "that's the way it is"
I commend that attitude. However, I have no problem with schools making their rules that students are not allowed to wear clothes with sexually-related slogans on them (even if the slogans don't contain explicit language). It is the freedom of choice of the head teacher to decide what clothing they allow within their school. Obviously, this is an infringement on the 'freedom' of the pupils, but that is part of society, that while people are under a certain age, they are expected to be subject to some authority. I'd be the first person to admit that I hate submitting to authority; I'd be the first person to say that when I was at school of course I would wear things outside of what was permitted by the rules (and, shock, horror! my school had a uniform!! What a dastardly infringement on my human rights! O_o). That's perfectly normal. No-one likes obeying rules, particularly when they seem unnecessarily restrictive, and especially when it seems like it's only because of your age that they are imposed on you.

School rules are generally more restrictive than the 'unwritten rules' of general society out of an attempt to keep a discipline among a large group of young people (a difficult task, so probably teachers find it necessary to keep a tighter rein than otherwise) and to protect the pupils; 'sexually-related' slogans come under the latter category, as there are often such clothes worn by kids younger than 16 years, and which contribute to the sexualisation of children/minors, let's just say in that case sometimes having your freedom curtailed in some ways is better for you, like not having the 'freedom' to go put your hand in the fire, not having the 'freedom' to invite trouble.

I'm blethering a lot... ^^... to put it in a nutshell, yes, schools have the right to make their own rules, and yes, it is OK to have to deal with it. It is just a bit of hard luck you're having, to be imposed on by school rules, and it's more mature to 'deal with it' rather than whinge. :okashii:

Now if the rules were cruel, discriminatory or otherwise 'unjust' I would say of course you have to fight against it. But in this case it appears not to be a question of discriminating against someone because of their sexual orientation, but enforcing certain rules that apply to everyone equally.

Footnote: actually, much as I love Mike, I do think that the title of this thread was unnecessary. Granted that the topic might interest Hyde, there is no reason to suppose it would be of more interest to her than to anyone else on the forum with an interest in gender equality issues... or even in the design of quirky t-shirts! :p I think it was unnecessary to single her out in this case.

Mike Cash
20-02-06, 19:52
In what way did I "bait" you?

Can you point to something I've said on JREF or anywhere else to indicate I have anything against people who happen to be other than heterosexual?

I saw some commonalities between yourself and the young woman in the article and thought you might find it of interest. I am less fond of PMs than I am of starting new threads, so I presented it in a thread.

If it bothers you, I won't say I'm "fond" of you. But I have cleaned and dusted a formerly unused corner of my heart and made a little place for you there.

I wish you had the maturity and inner peace to recognize that my disagreements with you have been based on principle and not personal antipathy. Lose the chip.

Hyde_is_my_anti-drug
20-02-06, 20:00
Wow, you are full of it.

Tsuyoiko
20-02-06, 20:04
Mike - I know you prefer threads to PMs, but I think if you guys want to carry this on, PMs would be the proper place :-)

bossel
20-02-06, 20:22
Thread locked.