CA Schools Curriculum: Inclusive of Historical Accomplishments of Gay Men & Lesbians

[southcitymom]

Yet more excellent arguments for gay marriage:

- it recognizes that gay relationships aren't just about sex;

- it provides visual evidence that role models exist for gay kids.

Exactly!!

 

[southcitymom]

Vincent Van Gogh -- would seem obvious he was gay and would make study / discussion of his life and accomplishments more interesting. Why else would a person cut off their ear if not for love (or lunacy)?

King Ludwig of Bavaria -- sponsored Richard Wagner allowing him opportunity to write fabulous operas

NOW I am off to my kiddie pool and a vodka tonic as it is very hot and humid here. Good weekend all.

Have fun - I am running off to meet some girls for cocktails myself!

 

[Emma Peel]

So the readers here don't think I'm homophobic - I'm not.

I have a gay friend and love him like a brother. He is an awesome, intelligent, kind, caring human being and everyone loves him. He has told me many details about his life that I don't need to know. IMO what he enjoys in the privacy of his home is his business. My grandson knows him and thinks he is a great person. My grandson, 10yo, in his mind believes that gay means two ladies that love each other or two men that love each other and that is all he need to know.

It is the wording 'historic accomplishments of gay men and lesbians' that is making me frown because why does sexual orientation need to be brought into a discussion about an inventor or pioneer? In school we often don't learn about the personal life of such figures. Martin Luther was married but that is not discussed when he is studied. How many high school graduates know that Abraham Lincoln had four children? They may know his wife was named Mary and even if he had been a gay man what does that have to do with anything?

This is an interesting conundrum. Why don't you ask your gay friend what he thinks?

Ask if it would have made a positive difference in his life and education - particularly high school. Ask if it would have made a difference in his self esteem and relationships with peers - to have had history class be inclusive (as appropriate) of gay historical figures and their stories, and to cover the struggle for gay civil rights along with other minority struggles. Ask if he sees how it could help with bullying.

I've been asking the gay people in my life. So far, they all think it's terrific - because knowing these stories and role models, and realizing their peers also knew these things, actually would have meant a great deal to them in high school. A very positive development, as far as they are concerned.

 

[ChasingMoxie]

I think this sounds like a great idea. I was bullied throughout high school for being a lesbian. My views on sexual and gender identity are of a fairly progressive "sliding scale" variety, but in general terms I identify straight. I'm not sure why everyone decided to latch onto that particular concept to ridicule me throughout my youth, some kid generates your label and you wear it until college, I guess. I laughed it off, but suicide is not uncommon in this situation. I lost a childhood friend to suicide because of his family's inability to acknowledge his homosexuality. He is exactly the sort of person who could really benefit from the opportunity to discover historic role models - and the opportunity to discover that to spite everything he had been told, there was nothing wrong with him. I wish he had had that chance.

Anything that guides us toward a future where using "gay" as a derogatory term is rightly identified as completely absurd is fine by me. Oh, and any implication that homosexuality or transsexuality is some sort of fetishist lifestyle is extremely offensive.

 

[Charlie09]

Unfortunately, children have to be protected from some parents. Gay children in particular need to be protected from parents who treat the subject as unmentionable.

I have some experience in this area.

ETA children are a sacred trust, not the personal property of their parents. "Parental rights" should be limited.

Oh good god! Limited! Please this is where the emotions come in - what horrible sentiment - that you want to limit my right as a parent to teach that about appropriate relationships!

 

[Nova]

Vincent Van Gogh -- would seem obvious he was gay and would make study / discussion of his life and accomplishments more interesting. Why else would a person cut off their ear if not for love (or lunacy)?

King Ludwig of Bavaria -- sponsored Richard Wagner allowing him opportunity to write fabulous operas

NOW I am off to my kiddie pool and a vodka tonic as it is very hot and humid here. Good weekend all.

King Ludwig is clearly documented, I believe. Not that he had an affair with Wagner, but I know that isn't what you meant.

But Van Gogh? I know there are questions about his feelings for Gauguin, but I'm not one to assume every close friendship is a love affair. I thought Van Gogh cut off his ear for the love of a woman. No? (ETA that's probably the Hollywood version.)

 

[Nova]

This is an interesting conundrum. Why don't you ask your gay friend what he thinks?

Ask if it would have made a positive difference in his life and education - particularly high school. Ask if it would have made a difference in his self esteem and relationships with peers - to have had history class be inclusive (as appropriate) of gay historical figures and their stories, and to cover the struggle for gay civil rights along with other minority struggles. Ask if he sees how it could help with bullying.

I've been asking the gay people in my life. So far, they all think it's terrific - because knowing these stories and role models, and realizing their peers also knew these things, actually would have meant a great deal to them in high school. A very positive development, as far as they are concerned.

It would have made a huge difference to me, Emma. Intellectually, of course, I knew there had to be other gay people in the world somewhere, but through high school it felt as if I were the only one (and I kept it very much a secret, naturally). I certainly had no knowledge of same-sex relationships in history (even the Greeks were sanitized for our protection). I had no knowledge that gay men or women ever formed stable and mutually supportive partnerships.

And I went to a performing arts high school of all places! LOL.

Let's note: ignorance failed to make me a heterosexual. It just doesn't work that way.

Of course, nowadays there's a gay character on every TV show. But do we really want kids' only knowledge of gay people to come from True Blood?

 

[Nova]

Oh good god! Limited! Please this is where the emotions come in - what horrible sentiment - that you want to limit my right as a parent to teach that about appropriate relationships!

No, no, no, Charlie, that's not at all what I meant! In other posts I defend the right of parents to pass on their beliefs, even hateful ones.

What I don't believe is that parents have a right to keep their children in a permanent state of ignorance, to conceal facts just because the parent doesn't like them. I realize some judgment has to be exercised as to what children are told at each age. (Personally, I tend to favor answering questions as they ask them, but I realize that doesn't work in every situation.)

As you might imagine, we raised our children with liberal political values and as agnostics about religion. But we never stopped them from going to church with a friend or from reading books or watching programs with opposite points of view (including anti-gay ones). No, I don't think I have that right.

ETA thanks for saying something so I could explain.

 

[Charlie09]

No, no, no, Charlie, that's not at all what I meant! In other posts I defend the right of parents to pass on their beliefs, even hateful ones.

What I don't believe is that parents have a right to keep their children in a permanent state of ignorance, to conceal facts just because the parent doesn't like them. I realize some judgment has to be exercised as to what children are told at each age. (Personally, I tend to favor answering questions as they ask them, but I realize that doesn't work in every situation.)

As you might imagine, we raised our children with liberal political values and as agnostics about religion. But we never stopped them from going to church with a friend or from reading books or watching programs with opposite points of view (including anti-gay ones). No, I don't think I have that right.

ETA thanks for saying something so I could explain.

Thank you for the clarification. Personally here's what I've noticed with two examples in my first cousin circle of family.

My parents told us in Jr. high that one was gay, one was a lesbian. It was said without judgement, without harshness, they explained what it meant and why they felt it went beyond the realm of relationships the Bible allows for - while clearly saying "they are our family and we love them regardless"

We never discussed it with family members. The gay cousin was the one that I was so disappointed to find out we couldn't marry cousins...he was that perfect (and remained so until he died of AIDS about 4 years ago). I was 25 or 26 before he broached it with me and was floored when I said "I know...so?"

My lesbian cousin took me out to dinner because I was going to stay with her partner and her while looking for an apartment in SF. I couldn't figure out what was wrong, she got all flustered and finally just said Miss M and I are "together". Just for fun, I slammed my fork down and said "NO!" then I laughed and said "yeah, mom told me in 8th grade. Um, but just for the record, even I'm not naive enough to not know that you two have lived together for 20 years now. I have seen how she looks at you." I think she was more shocked that my mom knew and kept on loving her and writing letters all those years than I that I knew too.

My point is...I think it's very possible to have moral (faith backed, not hate backed) lines. To explain it to your kids, and accept people because they are people, and they are part of families and circle of friends. I feel like on these threads if you aren't totally open minded and pro-gay rights you're treated with words like homophobic and bigot. I cringe on some very conservative sights at how people describe gay people. I'd probably have my daughter tasting soap if she ever used those words or had that kind of reaction.

On the other hand I do have the right to explain to my daughter that God is clear in his word on straight and gay relationships and we have to live our lives according to what we base it on, in our home that's the Bible, and we don't have the right to tell anyone else how to live based on our house.

I think it's a parental job though to explain what the difference is between homosexuality and heterosexuality. We live in Laguna Beach, it's already been a topic for my 7 year old...but briefly and appropriately. (The last thing I want is her pointing and saying something if I were to just ignore it.) But I don't want it discussed at her level in classes. (In all fairness, we go to a hybrid home school/christian school, so she isn't subjected to public school curriculum anyway...but I'm talking in generalities). I just think it's too much for little minds that are still learning when two vowels go walking, the first one does the talking.

I think too the idea that Lincoln was homosexual is based on gossip and innuendo, not from his writings or of any supposed partner (at least on my brief research into the subject.) So I question using him as an example of a famous gay person in history even for the older kids.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

Thank you for the clarification. Personally here's what I've noticed with two examples in my first cousin circle of family.

My parents told us in Jr. high that one was gay, one was a lesbian. It was said without judgement, without harshness, they explained what it meant and why they felt it went beyond the realm of relationships the Bible allows for - while clearly saying "they are our family and we love them regardless"

We never discussed it with family members. The gay cousin was the one that I was so disappointed to find out we couldn't marry cousins...he was that perfect (and remained so until he died of AIDS about 4 years ago). I was 25 or 26 before he broached it with me and was floored when I said "I know...so?"

My lesbian cousin took me out to dinner because I was going to stay with her partner and her while looking for an apartment in SF. I couldn't figure out what was wrong, she got all flustered and finally just said Miss M and I are "together". Just for fun, I slammed my fork down and said "NO!" then I laughed and said "yeah, mom told me in 8th grade. Um, but just for the record, even I'm not naive enough to not know that you two have lived together for 20 years now. I have seen how she looks at you." I think she was more shocked that my mom knew and kept on loving her and writing letters all those years than I that I knew too.

My point is...I think it's very possible to have moral (faith backed, not hate backed) lines. To explain it to your kids, and accept people because they are people, and they are part of families and circle of friends. I feel like on these threads if you aren't totally open minded and pro-gay rights you're treated with words like homophobic and bigot. I cringe on some very conservative sights at how people describe gay people. I'd probably have my daughter tasting soap if she ever used those words or had that kind of reaction.

On the other hand I do have the right to explain to my daughter that God is clear in his word on straight and gay relationships and we have to live our lives according to what we base it on, in our home that's the Bible, and we don't have the right to tell anyone else how to live based on our house.

I think it's a parental job though to explain what the difference is between homosexuality and heterosexuality. We live in Laguna Beach, it's already been a topic for my 7 year old...but briefly and appropriately. (The last thing I want is her pointing and saying something if I were to just ignore it.) But I don't want it discussed at her level in classes. (In all fairness, we go to a hybrid home school/christian school, so she isn't subjected to public school curriculum anyway...but I'm talking in generalities). I just think it's too much for little minds that are still learning when two vowels go walking, the first one does the talking.

I think too the idea that Lincoln was homosexual is based on gossip and innuendo, not from his writings or of any supposed partner (at least on my brief research into the subject.) So I question using him as an example of a famous gay person in history even for the older kids.

Great post!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Nova]

Agreed. Great post! We'll see what develops, Charlie. As the links above show, this law leaves it to individual districts to decide when and how to broach the subject, so 7-year-olds may never hear about it. But I think gay parents are common enough in some states (including CA where 36,000 people remain gay-married), that something needs to be said fairly early about not all families looking the same.

(BTW California is pretty well divided between liberal urban and coastal counties and conservative rural and inland counties (including mine). Who knows if gay history will ever be mentioned in the latter?)

On a slightly different subject, I know we can't discuss religion here, but for the life of me I don't understand how intelligent and rational Christians can insist on a couple of dictates in Leviticus when they know perfectly well they ignore much of the rest. This isn't a pot shot and I'm not accusing anyone of hatred. I really don't understand.

 

[Charlie09]

Agreed. Great post! We'll see what develops, Charlie. As the links above show, this law leaves it to individual districts to decide when and how to broach the subject, so 7-year-olds may never hear about it. But I think gay parents are common enough in some states (including CA where 36,000 people remain gay-married), that something needs to be said fairly early about not all families looking the same.

(BTW California is pretty well divided between liberal urban and coastal counties and conservative rural and inland counties (including mine). Who knows if gay history will ever be mentioned in the latter?)

On a slightly different subject, I know we can't discuss religion here, but for the life of me I don't understand how intelligent and rational Christians can insist on a couple of dictates in Leviticus when they know perfectly well they ignore much of the rest. This isn't a pot shot and I'm not accusing anyone of hatred. I really don't understand.

We'll I'd have been stoned according to Leviticus since I'm a single mom. All I will say in return is I'm thankful for Grace and Mercy

 

[Nova]

We'll I'd have been stoned according to Leviticus since I'm a single mom. All I will say in return is I'm thankful for Grace and Mercy

I am such a :loser:! I just now looked at where you live, Charlie. I apologize for explaining California regional politics to you. I don't know how Orange County is districted. Out here, students in Palm Springs Unified may get a very different curriculum re gay studies than students in the cities down valley, which fall into a different (and more conservative) district.

Yes, we should all be grateful for the Grace and Mercy of God. But I'll never agree that your marital status or mine requires forgiveness.

 

[Fairy1]

It would have made a huge difference to me, Emma. Intellectually, of course, I knew there had to be other gay people in the world somewhere, but through high school it felt as if I were the only one (and I kept it very much a secret, naturally). I certainly had no knowledge of same-sex relationships in history (even the Greeks were sanitized for our protection). I had no knowledge that gay men or women ever formed stable and mutually supportive partnerships.

And I went to a performing arts high school of all places! LOL.

Let's note: ignorance failed to make me a heterosexual. It just doesn't work that way.

Of course, nowadays there's a gay character on every TV show. But do we really want kids' only knowledge of gay people to come from True Blood?

I sincerely appreciate your perspective on this, Nova.

I have mixed feelings about notable folks in history being "categorized" as gay (or anything else!) when such distinctions are never made about those who were not (or not known to be) gay.

On one hand, I would consider the distinction to be little more than a footnote that serves to marginalize the accomplishments or character of these folks.

OTOH, I can see the very powerful and positive message that could be sent to students who have discovered or suspect they are gay.

I'm not a big fan of setting people apart from other people. But perhaps this is a way to close that gap?

In any case, I'm glad CA is going to venture there. It's a great step toward embracing and advancing diversity.

 

[pghbrandi]

And what if he has classmates who have two moms or two dads? Should he be told families sometimes look like that, too, or should he just assume they are somehow wrong?

As my granddaughter said at that age, after her umpteenth viewing of The Little Mermaid, "When I grow up, I am going to marry a prince! But I can marry a princess if I want to."

(ETA in addition to having two gay grandfathers, she lives in Massachusetts. None of this is a big deal to her, her brothers or their friends.)

As one of my previous posts stated, if it is ever brought up, I would explain it. I am honest with my kids. Just because I don't feel the need to expose them to every single thing does NOT make me a bad mother. I also said that I think kids have no innocence anymore. I prefer mine do. I also said that I like the fact they go to public school and meet different cultures, upbringings what ever. I won't lie to them, I don't teach hate. There is enough of that out there that they will learn on their own. Also, as I stated before, I am sure if I had gay friends, my kids would accept that as the norm. I don't have gay friends. So they aren't exposed. I am not going to go out of my way to do so.

 

[Fairy1]

As one of my previous posts stated, if it is ever brought up, I would explain it. I am honest with my kids. Just because I don't feel the need to expose them to every single thing does NOT make me a bad mother. I also said that I think kids have no innocence anymore. I prefer mine do. I also said that I like the fact they go to public school and meet different cultures, upbringings what ever. I won't lie to them, I don't teach hate. There is enough of that out there that they will learn on their own. Also, as I stated before, I am sure if I had gay friends, my kids would accept that as the norm. I don't have gay friends. So they aren't exposed. I am not going to go out of my way to do so.

Of course, you're not a bad mother! But do keep in mind that not everything to which your children are exposed will come from you. If they're in the world, they will see and hear and learn about things you may not teach them at home.

To shield them from reality would be a travesty, since that's where we live!

 

[pghbrandi]

I understand that Fairy. I also expect it. What gets me though its so young. That's all. Also, apologies to all (especially Nova) if you thought my above post was snippy. I was a bit moody yesterday and I think my post reflected it.

 

[Donjeta]

How about polygamy? Kody Brown and the sister wives seem happy enough and I don't care how they live but imo lifestyle choices and sexual orientation doesn't need to part of public school history curriculum.

I mostly agree with what you wrote in other posts in that children should learn that people are primarily people and not defined by their sexual orientation as a special class of citizen.

I am a little uncomfortable with the idea of teaching "gay history" because I am afraid that some teachers who may not embrace the values might twist it into the complete opposite of what was meant and it'll turn into dividing history to two parts, the history of people and then the history of gays, driving home the point that gays aren't really the same kind of folks at all. I really would like children to learn that there have been a lot of artificial and unnecessary lines drawn between groups of people who are all equal and really just people at heart, not primarily defined as their membership in this and that subgroup.

But I don't think silence about the existence of the subgroups is going to teach children that, in all likelihood. It's been tried for long enough to say it didn't work.

Lifestyle choices are IMO an inevitable part of history curriculum. At least when I went to school we heard about lots of men who had wives and women who had husbands. Sometimes the family of historical figures is quite relevant in the teaching. However, my history teachers hardly ever said anything about anybody who had a same sex partner, and it was not just history, there was never anybody in the literature books we had to read who was gay. It was nearly always happy families with mom, dad and two point three kids.

The way straight relationships and straight lifestyle choices can be mentioned freely as a matter of the normal course of things and gay relationships are kept shush shush creates a normative expectation that everybody was and is heterosexual. It is not true and I'm not sure why anybody would want their children learn untrue things at school.

So I think this is probably a good development if done right.

 

[Nova]

I sincerely appreciate your perspective on this, Nova.

I have mixed feelings about notable folks in history being "categorized" as gay (or anything else!) when such distinctions are never made about those who were not (or not known to be) gay.

On one hand, I would consider the distinction to be little more than a footnote that serves to marginalize the accomplishments or character of these folks.

OTOH, I can see the very powerful and positive message that could be sent to students who have discovered or suspect they are gay.

I'm not a big fan of setting people apart from other people. But perhaps this is a way to close that gap?

In any case, I'm glad CA is going to venture there. It's a great step toward embracing and advancing diversity.

I understand your concern. Is queer playwright Christopher Marlowe fundamentally different from (maybe) straight playwright William Shakespeare? Not really, when some scholars think they were the same person! (On the other hand, if it means we pay more attention to Marlowe's brilliant works that happen to feature men who love men, I say, "Bring on the labels!")

But the examples Emma gave us up above from the Alameda County study guide are pretty conservative in this regard: modern personalities who have come out publicly and a couple of authors known for gay themes in their writing. Of course, this gives the impression that gay people only work in the arts, but at least it's a start.

Moreover, going back to the concept of historical accuracy, being marginalized by society does influence one's view and one's work. So ignoring the sexuality of some figures actually distorts history.

I suppose it puts Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., in a "box" to label him as African-American. But can we really imagine teaching history without mentioning that?

 

[Nova]

As one of my previous posts stated, if it is ever brought up, I would explain it. I am honest with my kids. Just because I don't feel the need to expose them to every single thing does NOT make me a bad mother. I also said that I think kids have no innocence anymore. I prefer mine do. I also said that I like the fact they go to public school and meet different cultures, upbringings what ever. I won't lie to them, I don't teach hate. There is enough of that out there that they will learn on their own. Also, as I stated before, I am sure if I had gay friends, my kids would accept that as the norm. I don't have gay friends. So they aren't exposed. I am not going to go out of my way to do so.

I believe you. And what if one of your kids is gay? Allowing a subject to remain unmentionable confers disapproval whether you mean it or not.

How does knowing that some families have two moms or two dads take away the "innocence" of children? YOU are (ETA inadvertently) the one making same-sex partnerships only about the bedroom. That is the problem.