Too much love in Conway Springs?

[MakeItRain]

So I want to talk about this but I don't want to be in that trainwreck of a thread

http://goEMAW.com/forum/index.php?topic=36401.msg1465059#msg1465059
http://www.kansas.com/news/local/education/article42398028.html

Leahy, shouldn't have shown this video without prior permission which he likely wouldn't have gotten. This video is very difficult to watch and isn't appropriate in a middle school. The overall message of the video is fantastic and jarring but he needed to find something else to deliver that message.

[Rage Against the McKee]

I think that he probably knew people would be upset, but since he was planning on retiring at the end of the year anyway, did what he thought was best for the students.

[michigancat]

I didn't watch the entire video but thought it was laughably bad and also thought it was hilarious that it was turning into a feature film. Great quotes from the guy though.

[sonofdaxjones]

No way that's going to fly at just about any school system.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Putting aside the issue of whether it should have been shown in middle school (it shouldn't), let's talk about the film itself.

Dystopian fantasy is one of my favorite themes, so I kind of enjoyed it for art, but if the film is supposed to be propaganda for normalizing homosexuality (and I think it is), then it failed miserably. Two examples:

1. The scene at the dining room table where the kid is talking about doing drama instead of football. The parents are two women, and yet they've been given clearly male and female stereotyped roles. One played the "dad" - clearly upset about the football/drama, preoccupied with "his" phone, etc. - where as the other played the "mom" - super compassionate and trying to placate the "dad." So the film is trying to normalize a two-mom family, yet portrays the family as having a stereotypical mom-dad dynamic.

2. "Breeders" and "Breeding season." So again, the film is trying to normalize homosexuality, and yet it acknowledges that hetersexual breeding is still necessary even in this dystopian reality, thereby suggesting that hetersexuality is in fact, our biological norm because it is our biological imperative to reproduce.

So as art, kinda interesting. As propaganda, it fails. And as an anti-bullying message to be displayed in middle schools, GMAFB.

[MakeItRain]

Putting aside the issue of whether it should have been shown in middle school (it shouldn't), let's talk about the film itself.

Dystopian fantasy is one of my favorite themes, so I kind of enjoyed it for art, but if the film is supposed to be propaganda for normalizing homosexuality (and I think it is), then it failed miserably. Two examples:

1. The scene at the dining room table where the kid is talking about doing drama instead of football. The parents are two women, and yet they've been given clearly male and female stereotyped roles. One played the "dad" - clearly upset about the football/drama, preoccupied with "his" phone, etc. - where as the other played the "mom" - super compassionate and trying to placate the "dad." So the film is trying to normalize a two-mom family, yet portrays the family as having a stereotypical mom-dad dynamic.

2. "Breeders" and "Breeding season." So again, the film is trying to normalize homosexuality, and yet it acknowledges that hetersexual breeding is still necessary even in this dystopian reality, thereby suggesting that hetersexuality is in fact, our biological norm because it is our biological imperative to reproduce.

So as art, kinda interesting. As propaganda, it fails. And as an anti-bullying message to be displayed in middle schools, GMAFB.

1. Uh, that's your interpretation based on who you think should fill those roles. I'm not sure why you think a mother can't be cold and distant.

2. Again it's your interpretation that you think the filmmakers overlooked that they acknowledged that heterosexuality is necessary. It is my interpretation that the breeding period is the only time it is accepted, not necessary. There are obviously ways gay couples can have children without heterosexuality.

I don't think it fails as propaganda, but I also don't think either of us is the audience that this video is intended for. Pretty obviously if you have strong opinions about this issue it isn't going to be swayed by an 18 minute video on youtube.

I'm not sure that was made for the purpose of showing it in schools.

[MakeItRain]

I think that he probably knew people would be upset, but since he was planning on retiring at the end of the year anyway, did what he thought was best for the students.

I sure hope he didn't think "well I'm leaving at the end of the year anyway so if I get fired YOLO!" There were seven months left in the school year, if he cares for those kids he needs to be there as the role model and messenger.

[michigancat]

I thought the video was made by right wing loons based on the description and first 3 minutes I watched.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

Putting aside the issue of whether it should have been shown in middle school (it shouldn't), let's talk about the film itself.

Dystopian fantasy is one of my favorite themes, so I kind of enjoyed it for art, but if the film is supposed to be propaganda for normalizing homosexuality (and I think it is), then it failed miserably. Two examples:

1. The scene at the dining room table where the kid is talking about doing drama instead of football. The parents are two women, and yet they've been given clearly male and female stereotyped roles. One played the "dad" - clearly upset about the football/drama, preoccupied with "his" phone, etc. - where as the other played the "mom" - super compassionate and trying to placate the "dad." So the film is trying to normalize a two-mom family, yet portrays the family as having a stereotypical mom-dad dynamic.

2. "Breeders" and "Breeding season." So again, the film is trying to normalize homosexuality, and yet it acknowledges that hetersexual breeding is still necessary even in this dystopian reality, thereby suggesting that hetersexuality is in fact, our biological norm because it is our biological imperative to reproduce.

So as art, kinda interesting. As propaganda, it fails. And as an anti-bullying message to be displayed in middle schools, GMAFB.

1. Uh, that's your interpretation based on who you think should fill those roles. I'm not sure why you think a mother can't be cold and distant.

2. Again it's your interpretation that you think the filmmakers overlooked that they acknowledged that heterosexuality is necessary. It is my interpretation that the breeding period is the only time it is accepted, not necessary. There are obviously ways gay couples can have children without heterosexuality.

I don't think it fails as propaganda, but I also don't think either of us is the audience that this video is intended for. Pretty obviously if you have strong opinions about this issue it isn't going to be swayed by an 18 minute video on youtube.

I'm not sure that was made for the purpose of showing it in schools.

1. I'm speaking of stereotypes - not in all instances - and if you can't acknowledge that those two women were playing traditional "mom" and "dad" stereotypes then I can't help you.

2. Why on earth would a "breeding season" be accepted in this fantasy if it weren't necessary?! "Uh yeah, in this alternate reality heterosexuality is morally frowned upon except for the month of April - then it's totally fine, but not because it's necessary." That makes zero sense.

The filmmakers would have been more consistent if they had just replaced "breeding" with artificial insemination.

So again, the film fails as propaganda for normalization of homosexuality because it actually demonstrates that homosexuality is not biologically normal and by retaining mom and dad stereotypes.

[MakeItRain]

watch the whole thing

[MakeItRain]

So again, the film fails as propaganda for normalization of homosexuality because it actually demonstrates that homosexuality is not biologically normal.

Of course homosexuality is biologically normal, it occurs across the animal kingdom. Just because it is not present in the majority doesn't mean it is abnormal. Is blonde hair abnormal? Is dark skin color an abnormality? Am I abnormal because I am over six feet tall?

[Cire]

Should have shown the pbs special about the brown eye/blue eye kids.

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

So again, the film fails as propaganda for normalization of homosexuality because it actually demonstrates that homosexuality is not biologically normal.

Of course homosexuality is biologically normal, it occurs across the animal kingdom. Just because it is not present in the majority doesn't mean it is abnormal. Is blonde hair abnormal? Is dark skin color an abnormality? Am I abnormal because I am over six feet tall?

You might want to look up the definition of normal. About 2% of humans are homosexual. That is not "normal." And yes, you are above normal height if you're over 6 foot.

[michigancat]

good grief not this crap again

[K-S-U-Wildcats!]

good grief not this crap again

I use words based upon what they actually mean, not based upon how they might make a person feel.

[MakeItRain]

good grief not this crap again

I use words based upon what I want them to mean, not based upon how they might make a person feel.

obviously

[0.42]

I think Pete was onto something in that whole break up the United States thing