[Winona Online Democracy]
Joining the conversation late, but I, too, am among those who cannot quite understand why the word vagina is objectionable. Not a big surprise since I taught my children the correct terms of vagina and penis when they were toddlers. As was pointed out earlier, elementary schools use the same terms in sex education classes. Certainly, the term can hardly be new to either students or teachers.
In school, we teach kids to be kind to their hearts and eat right, to be good to their bones and get plenty of calcium and exercise, to use their brains, to exercise their muscles, etc. We teach students to expect respect, to treat others as we would want to be treated, to embrace differences, to be individuals rather part of a mass. Or at least, we say we do.
While I agree that it is right and proper for any school to have a dress code that would forbid articles of clothing and accessories that would be disruptive, I haven't heard that the girls in any way disrupted class. In fact, it was a month before anyone noticed or objected to the button that Carrie was wearing--and that was a secretary, not a student or teacher struggling to control a giggling class.
I find it both disheartening and offensive to equate a proper term for a part of the body with words that promote consumption of alcohol, illegal drugs, racism, intolerance or sexual harrassment. All of which can be found, despite school policy, on articles of clothing at the senior high school. Many items of clothing from mainstream shops such as American Eagle and Ambercrombie and Fitch display messages that have double meanings--one literal and the other, sexual. These are not banned from the high school.
I am less disturbed by the school administration putting limits on the free speech of students than I am by the apparent view that the word vagina or the body part is objectionable, embarrassing or shameful. Or is it the official stance that the body part is not shameful, but only the word?
While I understand and appreciate that policies governing sexual harrassment are important, I am also concerned of the effects if this sort of policy were applied to all things considered objectionable by any person. Some are offended by people of other races, religions or cultures, some are offended by people of other political viewpoints. Must all religous symbols be banned because someone might be offended by another's expression of his/her religious faith? I believe that there is a difference from being in a work place/educational setting where one is safe from threats and harrassment and one in which one is ensured that he/she will never be offended.
Terri Hyle
_______________________________________________
This message was posted to Winona Online Democracy
All messages must be signed by the senders actual name.
No commercial solicitations are allowed on this list.
To manage your subscription or view the message archives, please visit
http://mapnp.mnforum.org/mailman/listinfo/winona
Any problems or suggestions can be directed to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] If you want help on how to contact elected officials, go to the Contact page at
http://www.winonaonlinedemocracy.org
