We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
No teacher is qualified to go rummaging into kids' unconsciousnesses, nor is it necessary, nor is it desirable. As a tomboy kid, I think this would have messed up my head. This is a political agenda driven by either ignorant or, more likely, deliberately-disruptive people.
Perhaps kids need safe spaces from psychological assaults by the education machine. This reminds me of the Death Education for kids that was a big deal ten years ago. The field trip highlight of that movement was to bring kids to mortuaries and see what was done to the corpses.
Is it cynical to wonder whether teaching arithmetic is just too difficult?
As a tomboy myself, I would sometimes have appreciated a little less of an onslaught of princess-girly imagery, but I would have put up a strong resistance to anyone's effort to explore my unicorn gender color or whatever.
Public schools have become too ridiculous for words. Luckily, the materials for good home-schooling have never been better. Did you know there are sites now where you can create virtual electronic boards and test them? Practically infinite tools for learning all kinds of things. The Khan Academy lectures alone are enough to replace most elhi programs, and can be done at the kid's own speed.
What is this 'physically attracted to' vs. 'emotionally attracted to' business? Have people lost track of their hearts, or is it just their minds?
Seriously, am I too just well-integrated to understand this jargon? Because it makes absolutely no sense to me.
It seems to me that if you are a "lesbian who is physically attracted to men but not women", then you aren't really gay -- you are a heterosexual woman who needs therapy to help her be emotionally vulnerable with the people she wants to and enjoys having sex with.
Or, is it that having an emotional connection with your sexual partner is considered to be a bad thing? Is this what they're saying?? I honestly can't keep track.
How is this worksheet supposed to be helpful by atomizing attraction...I just don't see this sort of ideology as helping people have more emotionally connected and fulfilling lives -- to the point where I'm starting to wonder if emotional disconnection between people is the real goal.