Homework about “my body”

This piece of homework came in via the tipline.  The concerned parent said:

“one piece of homework I flatly refused to do with the kids.”

What do you think?  Is this the sort of homework that schools should be setting?

 

 

Tagged:
  • http://www.facebook.com/church.db.91 Daniel Church

    Jesus Christ. That is disgusting.

    • http://voakl.net/ Ben Ross

      Please tell me Daniel when you have kids you will teach them the proper biological names of their respective anatomies?

      On the material Cam has posted – seems Human Biology in the class room has started somewhat early there :P

      Then again – I see no harm in it if it was taught in conjunction with parents from Year 8 upwards – you are going to see plenty more of penis, breast, testicles and so on and so on and so on as you advance through LIFE, science at school and university (biology was always my favourite “pure” science”) and those R16 and R18 movies (<_<)

      If this was being taught before Year 8 I would be a bit more concerned however but still not overtly fussed

      • http://www.mandm.org.nz Madeleine Flannagan

        I teach my children these things. I object to the state telling me to.
        Do you understand the distinction?

        • Techersrock

          Are you aware that this is stock standard stuff that has been happening for decades? Why so scared about your kids learning facts?

          Also you do know that (as Lucia has discovered) pulling your kids from these classes is kinda pointless as they will talk and talk with their mates about it.

        • http://voakl.net/ Ben Ross

          I can understand prior to year 8 your objections, but post year 8 is daft as the sciences expand into biology, health, social geography and population studies as the child progresses through to Year 13 (if you kid makes it that far) and beyond (University).

          So provide clarification here please if you object. Do you object entirely, or at a certain level (Year 8) as I would

          • http://www.facebook.com/church.db.91 Daniel Church

            Given that the assignment instructs parents to “help” their children with it and tick those boxes which are rather personal IMO, I took that to mean it is being dished out in primary school. Of course biology should be taught at high school but I think this goes too far, especially as it mentions abuse.

          • Teachersrock

            The program (run by the police by the way) is called Keeping Ourselves Safe for a reason.

        • phronesis

          Interesting that Madeleine’s post has 5 dislikes and no likes at this point. It is pretty much core conservative thinking that the State should stay out of parenting as much as possible. Particularly in a case like this where as nickle points out the terms used are not accurate. The motivation here is political and sociological not educational.

    • Teachersrock

      Why?

      • davcav

        To keep them safe from predatory teachers…

  • Euan.Rt

    I have no problem with this. It is not about sex but merely terminology which every kid should know. I admit that because My wife and I did not teach our kids properly early on, my daughter used to refer to her wee wee button…

  • Mitch82

    Bloody hell. What year is this from?

    • Teachersrock

      Looking at it I would say, junior school.

    • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz Whaleoil

      Years 1-3

  • Patrick

    Typical of the crap schools focus on, sex & climate change. What ever happened to reading writing & arithmetic? Here was me thinking that was what schools were supposed to teach.
    In all the years the schools have peddled the line that educating about sex will stop teenage pregnancies how much has the teenage pregnancy rate dropped? Is there a correlation between teenage pregnancies & the availability of welfare for teenage mothers?
    Or is the fact teenage pregnancy rates have increased despite teachers best efforts more a reflection on how p1ss poor teachers are at teaching?

    • http://voakl.net/ Ben Ross

      Umm when might want to check the definition of “sex” there Patrick as I think you are mixing up “Sex” and Sex(ual intercourse and other activities)

      Sex Ed dealing with Sexual Intercourse amongst other things is another topic entirely.

      Sex as in the biology term that defines the actual physical anatomy of what makes a male and female (not man and woman) I would consider as part of the normal curriculum in Science (biology) and Health (how to look after one’s self).

      Cam – what year level was that homework given by the way here – just to clear up the debate.

      • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz Whaleoil

        Primary school. Year 1-3

        • Teachersrock

          Yep, so quite acceptable. And before the haters start hating, remember the NZ Police put together the KOS program.

    • Teachersrock

      I would suggest you get a clue about the truth before posting again.

  • guest

    Best part is I doubt anyone without an anatomy degree could correctly name most body parts. The media certainly can’t

  • http://nzconservative.blogspot.com Lucia Maria

    My opinion is that this sort of thing wears away at a child’s modesty, and modesty is very important for a child to keep themselves safe.

    I would guess that this is from year 6 – 8, so I can look forward to withdrawing my child from it next year, after having to withdraw him from “Positive Puberty” this year.

    • Teachersrock

      You do understand withdrawing them was rather pointless.

      Their mates would have talked with them about what went on in class.

      I am always amazed by parents who are scared about their children learning facts about their bodies.

      • http://nzconservative.blogspot.com Lucia Maria

        Not scared. I just think its completely inappropriate.

        • Teachersrock

          Why? This sort of education has been stock standard for decades and decades.

          And I am glad to see you understand that your kids will have been told by their mates all about the lessons, even though you withdrew them.

          • http://nzconservative.blogspot.com Lucia Maria

            It’s one thing to talk about this sort of stuff with friends (which few do, btw, I know I didn’t), it’s another for teachers to violate boundaries and talk about children’s private body parts to them. This should be red flag to parents that teachers want to talk to children about their body parts.

          • Teachersrock

            Lucia are you being deliberately thick when you attempt to suggest any teacher doing this is a pedo?

            What do you NOT understand, THIS IS STOCK STANDARD. Sexuality education has been happening in schools FOR DECADES.

            There has been NO violation at all and it is very dishonest for you to suggest what you are suggesting. Given what was on the news tonight I would suggest you more careful with your comments.

          • http://nzconservative.blogspot.com Lucia Maria

            No, what I am suggesting is that those that are really keen to do this need to be looked at very carefully. There’s a difference between having to do something like this because it’s part of your job and wanting to do this because you enjoy it.

          • Teachersrock

            I can tell you now, teachers don’t enjoy it, you sick fucker.

            We get embarrassed about talking to kids about it, we squirm when they ask interesting questions but it is only sick twisted people like YOU who make it more.

            And it is always the really religious ones who are the sickest in the head.

          • Bunswalla

            Teach – please work on your nomenclature, both formal and colloquial.

            Lucia Maria is not a “sick fucker” as you so cavalierly accuse her of being. She is in fact a “sick fuck” – you really must keep up. We’re in 2012 now, don’t you know.

          • http://nzconservative.blogspot.com Lucia Maria

            They squirm do they? And yet here you are, calling me a disgusting name. Are you squirming on your seat as you do it?

          • Teachersrock

            There you go again you disgusting fuck (there you go Bunswalla). Implying dirty sexual things about children’s sexuality education.

            You staunch Catholics are always the sickest fucks of all.

        • Dion

          I understand that your church isn’t exactly squeaky clean in this regard.

          • Teachersrock

            Been watching the news tonight have you Dion? ;0)

          • Dion

            Having watched both the news and three seasons of Father Ted I figure I’m pretty up with the play on Catholic doctrine :p

          • http://nzconservative.blogspot.com Lucia Maria

            Teachers are far worse.

          • Teachersrock

            Only in your mind Lucia.

            I would be more worried about leaving my kid with a catholic priest than a teacher. A LOT more.

          • http://nzconservative.blogspot.com Lucia Maria

            It doesn’t matter who you would be worried about leaving your child with, the reality is that teachers are more likely to abuse children than Catholic priests. Where it has been studied (look up the Shakeshaft report), teachers are 100x more likely to abuse a child that a Catholic priest. With the number of abuse cases in the media this year in NZ, I would be very worried about your average teacher (especially the males ones) and make sure that your child is never alone with one – especially if they are overly keen on teaching body parts.

          • Teachersrock

            I love it when Catholics try to tell us to look out for others when they have abuse and covered up 10s of thousands of child abuse cases world wide.

            I also love it when sick twisted catholic women like yourself label all male teachers as pedos. You have just lost ANY credibility you may have had.

            I wonder if your school knows your true thoughts. Sicko.

          • Lion_ess

            Classic, a Teacher and a Catholic debating which of their revered institutions has the most/worst pedos.

          • Meg

            It isn’t a debate. Catholics will always be worse.

          • Mitch82

            Considering the ‘teachers vs priests’ study widely quoted was conducted under Catholic supervision, I’m disinclined to believe much of it.

            The Catholic Church work together to bury cases, closing ranks to protect their Priests and their image. Teachers are typically outed immediately and hung out to dry, as they should be.

            Given that history of cover ups, I’m more than a little sceptical of the official numbers over the last 70 years. It’s like Schroedinger’s Cat – until we get into the real archives (if any remain), we’re never gonna know the extent.

          • http://nzconservative.blogspot.com Lucia Maria

            The Shakeshaft report is completely independent. It was commissioned by the U.S. Department of Education.

          • Lion_ess

            “Shake-Shaft”, that has to be a joke, right?

          • pukakidon

            The Teachers are winning the Pedo comp at the moment, this year the score is 4 – 0 to the Teachers.

          • Agent BallSack

            But a Catholic priest is more likely to abuse hundreds of kids and be moved on to another parish to carry on the behaviour whereas a teacher will just go to prison Lucia. But none so blind….

    • http://twitter.com/louise_bee Louise

      You seriously think that worksheet is for Year 6-8? How slow is your child? This is clearly junior school work.

      Man, your kids are going to have some strange ideas about sex if you withdraw them from Positive Puberty. That’s a totally harmless program and just ensures they don’t freak out when they get their period or have their first wet dream.

      It’s quite creepy how obsessed you are with this. Why is it so terrible for a child to know the words ‘testicles’ or ‘vagina’? Why is it so bad for a male teacher to teach this? it’s quite sad that you think all male teachers are pedos. It’s sexist and ignorant, but unfortunately is still an opinion that lurks in society.

  • Teachersrock

    Perfectly acceptable and it will prompt those parents who are held up by their own hangups to perhaps be more open with their children about things they should know.

  • http://www.facebook.com/scott.miller0 Scott Miller

    Do we know which year group this home work was aimed at? makes a big difference to how we should judge it.

    • http://www.whaleoil.co.nz Whaleoil

      Year 1-3

  • Sancho

    I did this with my son. It was a homework assignment. We talked about the different parts and what they did. I asked him what the bits were called and then we wrote down their proper names. He calls them by what he wants to, but he knows the actual names aswell. He was 5 years old. It was good. It saved me having to describe everything.

  • Jimmy.m

    Whats the big deal? The kids need to know the proper names for the different body parts. My daughter is 7 and she has just had this at school. Whoop de do! They have got to learn it all sooner or later. If you dont like it, home school your kids.

  • nickle

    My 5yo had this homework last year – its part of a ‘keeping ourselves safe’ program – personally I think it goes too far. I was stunned to find they were teaching them about testicles and scrotum – does a 5yo need to know the difference between the two when ‘keeping themselves safe’, as they are located in almost exactly the same place.

    I also got ridiculed for being offended that the entire female genital area is now being referred to as vagina, anatomically incorrect, and I don’t see rectum, or colon being used in a similar way.

    Does a girl wipe her vagina after going wees, when shes actually urinating out her urethra, but is allowed to wipe her bottom after doing a poo??? Give me a fucken break about correct terminology bullshit – but when I mention this, I get pegged as a wowser with issues, who’s going to raise kids so afraid of their own bodies, they’ll end up pregnant with diseases etc, yeah, whatever.

    Funnily enough, I know my kids, I know what information they can handle, and I teach them what I feel they need to know for their ages. But my school felt they needed to introduce them to words like vagina and scrotum before I did…… at 5 years old!

    • http://voakl.net/ Ben Ross

      Okay now that I can see as going too far too soon by the education system <_<

    • Teachersrock

      Vagina is not a “bad” word and nor is scrotum. I suggest that it is your own personal hangups that are causing the problem not the fact your child is learning the correct words.

      Would you be happy with teachers calling a dog a woof woof until you say otherwise?

      • http://nzconservative.blogspot.com Lucia Maria

        They are not bad words, they are mysterious words, and therefore should be left alone by children and not forced down their throats by over-eager teachers who aren’t as keen to teach kids the technical names of all the bones and muscles in their bodies as they are the sex organs.

        • Teachersrock

          What the hell?? Mysterious??????????

          Good lord you have some issues.

          Luckily your son will get most of his sex ed from elsewhere.

          • Bunswalla

            “good LORD” – you nailed it, Teach.

      • nickle

        I never said they were bad – vagina is being used as a wrong term. Vagina is an internal part of the body, schools are happy to use it as a GENERAL term for the whole female genital area, and then bleat on about correct names for genitals – sorry, wrong.

        And as it is about naming genitals so you can tell someone if you’ve been abused, then I’d like to know how a scrotum can be touched in stead of testicles and vice versa.

        My hangups? yeah whatever

      • Bunswalla

        Stop brainwashing our children with your blatant communist manifesto! The correct term is “bow wow” – everybody knows that.

        • Teachersrock

          LOL, well with some parents (has you can see in this thread) all teachers are out to get their kids and ruin them.

          To those parents I would challenge them to remove their kids from school and teach them themselves.

    • MrV

      Great point, and it is all about proportionality. If you don’t want to teach your kids the terminology until they are say age 6 or 7, rather than 5, where is the issue?
      What pisses me off is some teachers go off about this as if it is a matter of utmost importance.
      Yet, where is the same level of concearn about things that matter, ie reading, writing and arithmetic?

  • Monique and Steve

    It’s peoples own twisted minds that turn this into something “inappropriate” Children are innocent, it’s the adult influences in their lives and the media, that rob them of that. Don’t look at something like this as disgusting, the child reading it sure won’t, unless you put that thought into their head.

  • Lion_ess

    Don’t parents teach these basics to their children before they go to school? I used a great book to educate my son on this topic called “Hair in Funny Places” – it still brings a smile.

    • Meg

      My aunty had books like that amongst her kids books from when they were about 6 year old. My mother was very frank and up front with me as well. They were very determined women who did not want their children to be ignorant of their bodies like they had been.

      It is a real shame that we have women like Lucia who want to prevent kids from learning what is natural.

      • Mitch82

        Pretty sure I read (I think it was called) “What’s happening to my body” like everyone else of my time.

        • Lion_ess

          My point on this thread is that responsibility for basic health, hygiene and anatomy belongs with parents. This test would be better served on parents by WINZ as a measure for benefit worthiness (if there is such a thing)

          • Teachersrock

            This sort of thing has been going on for decades and there are only a few who object to it. Health nurses, teachers the police have all been running sexuality education for a very long long time. For the children of parents who do talk to their kids about it and those that do not.

            Any parent is allowed to remove their child, but in my opinion that is pointless. After the lesson, all the kids who went tell the kids who didn’t go what happened. And to take Lucia’s position that she would rather her son hear this from other kids than adults who know the facts and won’t get bits wrong is just plain stupid. It is allowing your own issues with the topic get in the way of your kids learning.

            As far as I am concerned preventing your child from attending sex ed classes is in the same group as removing your child from Maths.

          • Lion_ess

            I don’t have a problem with sexuality education directed at young children – however, I personally believe the responsibility sits clearly with parents. Teachers would be better off engaged in scholastic education activities which have taken a dive, not being substitute mummies and daddies – if you get my drift

  • pukakidon

    I like the fact that this is put on the parents to work through with their children. School is being used as the conduit to educate silly parents that do not educate their children themselves in the ability to look after themselves Remember there are lost of parents out there whos only reason to have children is to increase their earning power.

  • whalewatcher

    Our kids, 7 & 10, did this at their Catholic school. It was done with them by an older policeman, who bollocked them for tittering at some of the words.

    I think it’s OK – and it helps any abused kids use the right words if being interviewed.

    This afternoon I had to pull my son up (age 10) for going on about ‘faggots’ – turns out he doesn’t know what it means, so I have explained! I added it is also German for a bunch of sticks…
    Last month we dealt with ‘gay’

    They just get younger and younger..

    • http://nzconservative.blogspot.com Lucia Maria

      Catholic schools should not be teaching this stuff as I told my son’s Catholic school.

      • Rodger T

        That`s right Lucia ,keep them in the dark and feed them bullshit,why change whats worked for catholicism for the last 1000+ years.

      • Teachersrock

        LMAO, yes how dare the catholic schools obey the law. They should only teach things from the 9th century.

        I hope they laughed you out of the school.

      • Big Jimmy

        Why not?

        • JimboBug

          Because then they would be able to tell the police where the nice priest touched them?

        • http://nzconservative.blogspot.com Lucia Maria

          Let me ask you something. Why do you have your children in a Catholic school?

          • Meg

            Let me ask you something, why do you have your children in school, why do you not home school them?

          • Kimbo

            To train them to be willing servants of the anti-Christ on earth, aka the Pope!

            Well, according to Ian Paisley!

            Joking aside, stop faffing around, Lucia Maria. Even I will acknowledge Catholic spirtituality is broad. If you are smart arse enough to come up with such a blanket statement as, “Catholic schools should not be teaching this stuff as I told my son’s Catholic school”, and then someone pays you the courtesy of giving your opinion a hearing via an honest and simple question. “Why not?”, stop talking in riddles.

            Now back to the issue of child nudity. Excuse me if I’m wrong, but didn’t Michelangelo paint the Cistene Chapel with lots of cherubs in the form of naked infants? If it wasn’t him, I seem to recall it was a standard feature of Papal-sponsored Renaissance art. How the Borgia crooks of the time funded that stuff (via selling indulgences) was most certainly a spiritual abomination, but I fear I am digressing to a familiar Catholic/Protestant fault line.

            Enough digression, Kindly stop be a smart arse, especially when you chose to inject a contrary voice into the conversaton. Have a go at answering Big Jimmy’s question…

          • http://nzconservative.blogspot.com Lucia Maria

            Kimbo,

            I answer a lot of questions that people ask me.

            This time, I’m asking the person that I have an active conversation with (Mr Teachersrock, since the formatting has gone crazy), as to why he has his children in a Catholic school. I’m especially curious as he doesn’t seem to particularly have a lot of respect for religion, given his comments here to me on priests, and his abuse of me for daring to suggest that teachers who enjoy teaching children the names of sex organs might have some sort of ulterior motive. He apparently “squirms” when he has to teach these sorts of things himself, but he’s calling me a “sick fuck” for objecting to teachers violating what should be a boundary of privacy with regards to the children in their charge.

            So no, I will not answer Big Jimmy’s question. If Big Jimmy wants to have a conversation with me at any point, he needs to earn it.

          • Teachersrock

            What makes you think any child of mine goes to a catholic school? Knowing that priests go into the schools, I would never put my child at risk like that. My children go to good state secular schools.

            And I called you a sick fuck for basically saying male teachers are all pedos and any teacher willing to teach sex ed were pedos.

            Please get your facts rights.

            Oh and do not place yourself on some pedestal – Jimmy has to earn it?? Who the hell do you think you are?

          • http://nzconservative.blogspot.com Lucia Maria

            Teachersrock,

            The Discus commenting system showed your name at the top of this particular thread, but now its showing the name of someone called Whalewatcher. That is why I thought you had children at a Catholic school, but you obviously don’t.

            The question is withdrawn, as it’s not you.

            And who do I think I am? Just a person that lots of people want to ask questions of. I can only answer so many.

          • Teachersrock

            No my dear. You think you are a step or more above everyone else. According to you Jimmy has to EARN the right to engage with you.

            You gave yourself away with that one, you pompous stuck up prude.

          • MrV

            Save us the “above everyone else routine” – coming from teachers, with a union that campaigns everyday for precisely that outcome – to be above everyone else.

          • Rebecca

            The international and local stats show that teachers are far more of a risk to kids than priests. If you’re concerned about priests then by your own logic you should be aghast at the thought of exposing your kids to those boy (and girl) buggering teachers looking for new ways to groom victims.
            Alternatively, perhaps we can steer away from such a nasty way of putting it. Especially when my impression is that many teachers are concerned about the weekly high profile cases of teacher boy (and girl) buggerers and are looking for ways to reassure parents. So what to do? First, if it’s sent home for parents as this sheet seems to have been, then parents can choose- but then nobody can control what gets discussed in the playground. Perhaps there’s a need for special accredited teachers. Somebody mentioned a policeman, presumably with teacher in attendance. Also seems reasonable. But surely the important thing is to try to hold an adult conversation without diverting into rants that teachers are the biggest boy buggerers in the world and they only want this stuff to make it easier to groom- or that Lucia is a Catholic so needs to scrape the blood from her cloven hooves.

          • Kimbo

            “So no, I will not answer Big Jimmy’s question. If Big Jimmy wants to
            have a conversation with me at any point, he needs to earn it”

            I call bollocks on that.

            If you make a prescriptive statement such as, “Catholic schools should not be teaching this stuff as I told my son’s Catholic school.” in a public forum such as this, especially when you are supposedly staking out a position of spiritual truth and righteousness, then it is dishonest not to back it up when requested.

            However, as your silence then leaves it open for others to respond on your behalf, invited or not, I’ll have a go a answering Jimmy: –

            “Because traditionally and officially the Roman Catholic church is an authoritative church – what it says is what is. There is no room for reason, dispute, or negotiation. Which is why, despite its efforts in the last 5o years to modernise, it still attracts conservative control freaks like Lucia Maria, who think they have a right to be taken seriously in a forum where different rules apply. When she says, “shouldn’t”, she means, “that is the end of the discussion”.

            You may now feel free to hold her posting style and presumption to be heard and taken seriously in contempt. I sure do.

          • Kimbo

            “This time, I’m asking the person that I have an active conversation with
            (Mr Teachersrock, since the formatting has gone crazy), as to why he
            has his children in a Catholic school….And who do I think I am? Just a person that lots of people want to ask questions of. I can only answer so many.”

            Stop blaming the formatting, Lucia Maria. You ponce in here, make an absolute statement with little or no explanation or illustration (which I see you finally did with the link- about time!), and then start squealing like a stuck pig when people start asking you questions! Don’t start something you can’t finish!

            As much as I find much (but not all) of your Catholicism contemptible, I don’t mind you outlining and explaining it. What I object to is that you adopt the papist didactic and catechetical communication style in a public forum where those principles of debate do not apply by consensus. I’ll defend your right to worship in your papist maner, but there is no way I’ll forfeit my intellectual and spiritual freedom by allowing you to surreptitiously force that style of discourse down my throat. Was partly what Latimer had in mind when he said, “be of good cheer, Master Ridley, and play the man; we shall this day light such a candle in England, as I hope, by God’s grace, shall never be put out”.

          • Rebecca

            WO attributed his post to a “concerned parent” who flatly refused to participate. Adult conversation followed… until a commentator dared to agree with the concerned parent. Disgraceful bullying and bigotry immediately erupted. Why? Perhaps because she also used the evil C word. Concerned parents are concerned parents but if they’re also Catholic, then bring out the pitchforks.
            Seems to me there is a tribe of bigots watching this blog hoping for a chance to paste in their prepared nastiness. You can’t get away with attacking nigs or faggots any more so you better get in fast to attack those boy buggerers while you can still get away with it.

          • Kimbo

            No, Rebecca, adult conversation did not follow.

            Someone posted the comment, “Catholic schools should not be teaching this stuff as I told my son’s Catholic school”, with no explanation, and with the implication that everyone had a moral and spiritual obligation to accept that point of view. The second part I don’t have a problem with someone stating (even though I don’t necessarily agree with the point of view), but to do it without the first (an explanation) is arrogance, especially when buttressed with the dismissal that an interloctor will have to earn the right of a reply, when, what?, they merely ask for clarification!! That is not how adults state a mature point of view.

            Accuse me of bigotry, and run the distraction that criticism of Catholicism is a form of persecution all you want – I didn’t accuse the Roman Catholic clery of engaging is systematic paedophilia – others may – its not my style, and its a stupid argument I can’t be bothered with.

            But come with high-handed papist authoritarianism in a place where it has no authority, and where it is Lucia Maria who should be earning the right to be heard, and not those who dare to question her, and you’ll get short shrift from me!

          • Rebecca

            In adult conversation you would not see two bully-boy responses before the obvious request for an explanation. Nor would you see all the puerile taunts or use of derogatory words like “papist” that are designed to convert adult conversation into a playground spat. Nor would any reasonable person think it is arrogant of the victim not to respond. As for accusing you: why should I? Those who participate in the bad behavior characterize themselves and while you may deny association, it seems odd that you are outraged more by Lucia’s inexcusable crime of not responding than in the obvious provocations that led to her decision.
            Meanwhile back in the jungle: if teachers are indeed calling female external genitalia the “vagina” then that’s just dumb, especially if they’re simultaneously distinguishing between testes and scrotum. A kid who can understand the distinction between testes and scrotum can understand the distinction between vulva and vagina, especially if people say correct terminology is important so kids can accurately describe something that has happened to them.

          • Kimbo

            Now you are posting falsehoods.

            There was no “puerile taunts or use of derogatory words”, or “obvious provocations that led to her decision” by Big Jimmy.

            Just a simple two word question, “Why not?”.

            And since when is ‘”papist” derogatory or pejorative?! It is describes someone who accepts the spiritual oversight and authority of the Pope, the Bishop of Rome, and seeks to advance that authority into the public and national sphere. Sounds like Lucia Maria to me.

            Like Islamist.

            Or Calvinist.

          • Rebecca

            You want to talk about falsehoods? OK.
            1) Before “big jimmy”‘s obvious request for an explanation, there were indeed two bully-boy posts. Exactly as I said. To deny it would be a falsehood.
            2) This was followed by a series of provocations and puerile taunts aimed at Lucia. You only have to click your mouse twice to confirm, so denying it would be another falsehood.
            3) “Papist” has a pejorative meaning as the most rudimentary google search will quickly confirm. Now you protest that you did not intend this meaning… even though it is entirely consistent with the rest of your context. I can imagine your reaction if one of your targets used sophistry like this.
            4) Normally I would not post in this fashion… but if you really must accuse others of posting falsehoods, you shouldn’t do it in a post packed with falsehoods of your own. Beams in eyes and people in glasshouses etc etc.

          • Kimbo

            Facts:
            1. Big Jimmy posted no bully-boy posts. He just asked a question. What others were posting was irrelevant to his reasonable request to receive an explanation to a angle on the thread Lucia Maria initiated. In the circumstances and as she was seeking to argue a moral/spiritual fusion, she had a moral and spiritual obligation to answer big Jimmy’s polite and understandable request.

            2. Papist in and of itself is not abusive or pejorative. There are plenty of terms that are to describe Roman Catholics – which is why I refrained from using them. “Anti-Christ on earth ” which I used to describe the Pope most certainly is pejorative. However, it is also orthodox Protestant belief (which I will refrain, due to time and space from explaining, but as you have access to google, perhaps you can research some more).

            Which just goes to show that what one person thinks is sacred, another can consider blaspehmous. Another example would be Catholic veneration of Mary as Queen of heaven, and mediatrix. Muslims have the same objection when Christians used the term “Son of God” to describe Jesus.

            Which is why, if you seek to initiate or angle a discussion with an ideological or religious point of view (as Lucia Maria did), no matter what it is, in a public space such as this you may find there are those who strongly object. And they are free to do so. Is a reality of discourse in the public space.

            So kindly stop seeking to manipulate this into a case of martyrdom, or a special targeting of Catholicism. Lucia Maria is a big girl. Perhaps she should “count the cost” before she sets out to tell us, uninvited, what the Bishop of Rome’s opinions/demands are on a matter of public educational policy.

          • Rebecca

            LOL, Now we’re onto the straw man fallacies.
            1) Nobody except you has ever suggested that Big Jimmy was responsible for the bully-boy posts- and who would, when it’s less than 2 clicks away to confirm it wasn’t him?
            2) Use of the term papist: nothing to add to previous comments about sophistry. People can make up their own minds on this one.
            3) If Lucia expresses an opinion about Catholic schooling, what does that have to do with you? Even if it did affect you, adult discourse requires arguing the point rather than entering attack mode. I count a series of 7 personal attacks that rendered adult discussion impossible. All because she responded to WO’s request for comment with something about a Catholic school your kids don’t go to. Finally, consider that Lucia’s response was one of three that expressed disapproval. No targeting, you say? OK. People can make up their own minds on that one too.
            4) The last paragraph with accusations of manipulation: yawn. Sheesh, my kids were sex-educated from a young age and my only thought here is that it’s dopey to mislabel female genitalia if that’s what’s going on. I also think that it’s bullying for groups of people to systematically go after somebody whenever she comments. That’s the sum of my contributions. I can see we won’t agree on that latter point so perhaps it’s time to focus on the topic of the thread? Mislabeling of female genitalia: sensible or not?

          • Kimbo

            “If Lucia expresses an opinion about Catholic schooling, what does that have to do with you?”

            What a foolish question. She is commenting in a public space, so we are all free to judge and make comment as we see fit! This isn’t the Catholic Church, where we have to shut up, and listen to what we are told!

            “adult discourse requires arguing the point rather than entering attack mode”

            Indeed, or at least I’ll acknowledge the first, but sometimes “attack” is a valid feature of adult discourse. Rather difficult when a person makes a blanket statement, but gives no reason, nor explanation why, especially when they were asked for in a direct but polite manner. All the more reason why Lucia Maria had an obligation to answer big Jimmy, which at the time I posted, she hadn’t.

            Instead she chose to devote her attentions elsewhere, to defensive dismissals of what she no doubt considered unreasonable comments from those her authoritarian comment had provoked/stimulated. Lack of priorities, especially from one who presumes to give enlightenment to others from a higher moral and spiritual perspective!

            “No targeting?”

            I have no problem acknowledging I target Lucia Maria’s posts, not because I disagree with her views on sex education as such, nor some of her positions. Instead, as should be very clear, I have a distrust of conservative Catholics using public space to advance the agendas and interests of the Bishop of Rome. Just as I do with Muslim fundamentalists, and just as I do with Destiny Church.

            Even more, I object to the method of high-handed authoritarianism and unctuousness that are often their rhetorical stock-in-trade, stemming from the authoritarian framework from whence they speak. They have a right to speak, and I have a right to object to their opinions, solipsisms, and pious posturing as I see fit – including with an “attack mode” if I consider it warranted. It is called political and religious freedom.

            “All because she responded to WO’s request for comment with something about a Catholic school your kids don’t go to…perhaps it’s time to focus on the topic of the thread?”

            Indeed. The original post by WO mentioned nothing about Catholic schools. It was whalewatcher who mentioned it as an aside. So go back again, and see who took it off topic to that irrelevancy…

            “Mislabeling of female genitalia: sensible or not?”:

            Probably pedantic and over-precise, given the age group concerned

          • Rebecca

            LOL. We’re commentators in somebody else’s blog. Nobody has to respond to vileness, nobody even has to turn up (though it is in WO’s interests to keep providing enough entertainment to keep ‘em coming!) and none of us is competent to sit in judgment on pseudonym personas or attack others, especially if it boils down to dislike for their religion. That’s especially true for those who produce anti-religion posts an order of magnitude larger than those they claim to abhor. Yes, I know your fingers are itching to accuse me of judgment- but did your mother judge you when she told you not to bash other kids at school? Ask yourself what your mother would say if she saw the way you behave here. Yes, I know you’re itching to respond that you had 2 fathers or were an orphan or some such, but just for a moment, honor my point rather than your own: invent a mother if you have to, but consider what she would say if she saw your posts. Maybe she wouldn’t care, or maybe she’d only care if you were the victim of the bullying rather than the perpetrator, but in that case there is no obligation for you to be like that too. And on that note I’m outta here, last word definitely is yours so knock yourself out.

        • http://nzconservative.blogspot.com Lucia Maria
          • Agent BallSack

            Bahahahaha. Pitiful.

  • GregM

    I would fail this test miserably.
    I still don’t know the correct name for the back wheels or heffalump.
    (gratuitously pictured below)

  • Sarrs

    Do people like Lucia Maria think that my brothers, sisters and I were somehow deprived of decent parenting because when we were young (like 7 or 8) our favourite joke was laughing at the old couple, Dick and Fanny, across the road and joking that they could never touch because then she’d have another baby? Obviously we knew there was more to it than that be jeezo we thought we were hilarious. Dick and Fanny? Come on…what child isn’t going to laugh at that! Maybe people like Lucia Maria would be angry because we had to explain, in depth, to the other kids in the neighbourhood why it was funny. I don’t recall there being any displays or demonstrations during those explanations either. Kids aren’t dumb. They know stuff, even if people would like to think they don’t.

  • MrV

    What absolute rubbish. If your child can’t do those things listed by age 5, then would they be capable of doing anything at school?

  • Troy

    Seems a lot of people are getting a little too precious about all this. A tit is a tit, a cock is a cock, they have other names of course but who uses them? We aren’t living in our father’s world anymore – kids are way more intelligent at a comparative age than their parents. I won’t even comment on catholics, it would likely get them all pious about it.

104%