And I Didn't Even Mention Jesus
Dear Ms. Williams,
In response to your article in the Spring 2005 issue of Teaching Tolerance entitled, "Caroline is a Boy":
I've often wondered why we tend to lean more towards words like tolerance and open-mindedness in exchange for the most common and (in my personal belief) most powerful term "love", in relation to subjects with regards to gender and sexuality. And after careful study and observance I've methodically concluded that love is a term in which it's substance never excludes the actuality that there is a standard. For love, if it is in fact love, is unconditional, meaning that in spite of present conditions, even if un-agreed, the devotion that one has toward the other is unaffected.
Tolerance (t lr-ns) n –
1.The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.
2. Leeway for variation from a standard.
I found the second part of the definition even more interesting than the first. In teaching this so-called "tolerance" that you are suggesting be infiltrated into our educational system, it is evident that there is a double agenda. By paying closer attention to the two definitions I can see why one would be lured into believing that they are synonymous. However, this is quite the contrary. The double agenda is to a) get the individual to recognize; and b) sway them into denouncing their standard and adopting the one(s) presented before them. Needless to say, for anyone to have a standard in the society in which we dwell is now offensive. I believe that a standard should be respected on all levels. I understand the standard that you were attempting to portray within your article. Caroline was a she who made a conscious decision that her she wasn't working out, so she became a he and then she, who was a he, was now John. By making an effort to establish a curriculum of tolerance into our educational systems, it will be easier for people like Caroline/John, to adapt more to their environment.
In many ways, I agree that there is a need to build an environment conducive for people like Caroline. There are ways of attaining this without re-structuring the entire environment, resulting in altering the worldviews of all of the children within it. If Jessica, Sussie and Tiffany are all within the same class and Jessica, Sussie and Tiffany were born with female genetalia and they are comfortable with their having grown up as little girls who go to little girls bathrooms and sit instead of stand, what then would happen if we now introduced a curriculum that suggested that Jessica, Sussie and Tiffany had a choice in their sexuality and gender all along? It would not only re-structure their thinking, but it would change a standard that they have been brought up on. So you see this isn't tolerance that you are suggesting; it's re-socialization. It's implementing an element of choice to young people who are only in school because of their lack of maturity in making choices. As a result of Caroline/John's predicament, the educational system will now attempt to persuade the Jessica, Sussie and Tiffany's of the world into the idea that they, too can shift from their particular standard and choose. If Jessica, Sussie and Tiffany have been brought up on a standard, it's not the educational system's responsibility to re-socialize the standard that they have been brought up on by introducing ideologies to them that would suggest otherwise.
What would eliminate both aspects of this two-part definition is by implementing an agenda of love, not only into our educational system, but into our families. "Love", in all its purity is clearly a term that has been re-defined in a subjective manner to fit each individual's own personal prescription. "I was in love with Bob"; "I love my dog, Spot"; "I love the way you comb your hair"; "I loved dinner last night". "Love" has simply turned into a synonym for "like". Why not bring clarity to the beauty of this term and instruct our children that their sole responsibility is not to reject others who's views may conflict, nevertheless to continue to embrace their own standard.
Sincerely,
Khristi L. Adams
In response to your article in the Spring 2005 issue of Teaching Tolerance entitled, "Caroline is a Boy":
I've often wondered why we tend to lean more towards words like tolerance and open-mindedness in exchange for the most common and (in my personal belief) most powerful term "love", in relation to subjects with regards to gender and sexuality. And after careful study and observance I've methodically concluded that love is a term in which it's substance never excludes the actuality that there is a standard. For love, if it is in fact love, is unconditional, meaning that in spite of present conditions, even if un-agreed, the devotion that one has toward the other is unaffected.
Tolerance (t lr-ns) n –
1.The capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.
2. Leeway for variation from a standard.
I found the second part of the definition even more interesting than the first. In teaching this so-called "tolerance" that you are suggesting be infiltrated into our educational system, it is evident that there is a double agenda. By paying closer attention to the two definitions I can see why one would be lured into believing that they are synonymous. However, this is quite the contrary. The double agenda is to a) get the individual to recognize; and b) sway them into denouncing their standard and adopting the one(s) presented before them. Needless to say, for anyone to have a standard in the society in which we dwell is now offensive. I believe that a standard should be respected on all levels. I understand the standard that you were attempting to portray within your article. Caroline was a she who made a conscious decision that her she wasn't working out, so she became a he and then she, who was a he, was now John. By making an effort to establish a curriculum of tolerance into our educational systems, it will be easier for people like Caroline/John, to adapt more to their environment.
In many ways, I agree that there is a need to build an environment conducive for people like Caroline. There are ways of attaining this without re-structuring the entire environment, resulting in altering the worldviews of all of the children within it. If Jessica, Sussie and Tiffany are all within the same class and Jessica, Sussie and Tiffany were born with female genetalia and they are comfortable with their having grown up as little girls who go to little girls bathrooms and sit instead of stand, what then would happen if we now introduced a curriculum that suggested that Jessica, Sussie and Tiffany had a choice in their sexuality and gender all along? It would not only re-structure their thinking, but it would change a standard that they have been brought up on. So you see this isn't tolerance that you are suggesting; it's re-socialization. It's implementing an element of choice to young people who are only in school because of their lack of maturity in making choices. As a result of Caroline/John's predicament, the educational system will now attempt to persuade the Jessica, Sussie and Tiffany's of the world into the idea that they, too can shift from their particular standard and choose. If Jessica, Sussie and Tiffany have been brought up on a standard, it's not the educational system's responsibility to re-socialize the standard that they have been brought up on by introducing ideologies to them that would suggest otherwise.
What would eliminate both aspects of this two-part definition is by implementing an agenda of love, not only into our educational system, but into our families. "Love", in all its purity is clearly a term that has been re-defined in a subjective manner to fit each individual's own personal prescription. "I was in love with Bob"; "I love my dog, Spot"; "I love the way you comb your hair"; "I loved dinner last night". "Love" has simply turned into a synonym for "like". Why not bring clarity to the beauty of this term and instruct our children that their sole responsibility is not to reject others who's views may conflict, nevertheless to continue to embrace their own standard.
Sincerely,
Khristi L. Adams
posted by Khristi Lauren at
9:25 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home