Skip to main content

JCG posted:

In my experience the word "flaming" when applied to a gay person is usually followed by the words "faggot" or "fag". I hope those are terms we can agree on as not being polite or inoffensive.  Due to those customary usages, you can make the case that the word "flaming" all by itself carries the same connotation, so not really appropriate to describe anyone in a public conversation.   

Just my opinion, as I'm not a sworn officer of the PC police.

I do not agree.

Part of the PC police problem is that ordinary words are turned into something they may not have been intended to be, and what was once an adjective is now a noun.  Words have different meanings for different people.  The intent behind them matters greatly.

I don't think that when the Maria character in West Side Story sang the lyrics "I feel pretty, oh so pretty, I feel pretty and witty and gay." that she was in anyway coming out of the proverbial closet.

Words alone are not hurtful, their INTENT is hurtful.

old_school posted:
2017LHPscrewball posted:

  In this case, the 16yo boy should not make a determination of "comfort level" based on the one interaction.  What if he visits campus and the first girl he sees in kind of plain - does he then write off the school because the girls are not pretty enough?

first impressions are kind of important, yes I think the son could strike the college very easily as place not worth the time investment for him. There thousands of schools out there and I am sure he will be able to find one that treats him extremely well.

OP referenced Dartmouth (no doubt great school) but maybe it is wrong for him regardless of the great school, maybe he would be a better fit at Notre Dame or Georgetown (or one of many others) where he finds somewhat different environment...again the beauty of the PC community is it only extends one way!!

One could almost equate this with the recruiters that see a kid with their hat on sideways and cross them off their list!  With SOOOO many choices how is a kid suppose to narrow this stuff down if it isn't by what they see, hear, and feel regarding the school?

old_school posted:
2017LHPscrewball posted:

  In this case, the 16yo boy should not make a determination of "comfort level" based on the one interaction.  What if he visits campus and the first girl he sees in kind of plain - does he then write off the school because the girls are not pretty enough?

first impressions are kind of important, yes I think the son could strike the college very easily as place not worth the time investment for him. There thousands of schools out there and I am sure he will be able to find one that treats him extremely well.

OP referenced Dartmouth (no doubt great school) but maybe it is wrong for him regardless of the great school, maybe he would be a better fit at Notre Dame or Georgetown (or one of many others) where he finds somewhat different environment...again the beauty of the PC community is it only extends one way!!

As another poster once wrote - WOW!  The kid picks out a school that interests him (presumably both academically and baseball wise) and you are suggesting that this first impression (whether you were referring to the high school experience or "plain girl sighting" I'm not exactly sure) should sway his decision 'cause there's lots of other good schools out there!  What if....his experience at the high school is in fact a "fluke" and it in no way represents the experience he would have at that school  Just because the kid is juiced on testosterone and got the "willys" after meeting with the guy is enough justification to write off the school?  In my book, that is not the smart move.  There may be lots of reasons the school is not a perfect fit or even a decent fit, but that one encounter, when viewed by a mature adult, is certainly not significant enough not to pursue any further.  Maybe we ought to stop saying "Go where they love you" and come up with something a little less provocative - so as not to freak out too many more 16 yo boys.

CaCO3Girl posted:
JCG posted:

In my experience the word "flaming" when applied to a gay person is usually followed by the words "faggot" or "fag". I hope those are terms we can agree on as not being polite or inoffensive.  Due to those customary usages, you can make the case that the word "flaming" all by itself carries the same connotation, so not really appropriate to describe anyone in a public conversation.   

Just my opinion, as I'm not a sworn officer of the PC police.

I do not agree.

Part of the PC police problem is that ordinary words are turned into something they may not have been intended to be, and what was once an adjective is now a noun.  Words have different meanings for different people.  The intent behind them matters greatly.

I don't think that when the Maria character in West Side Story sang the lyrics "I feel pretty, oh so pretty, I feel pretty and witty and gay." that she was in anyway coming out of the proverbial closet.

Words alone are not hurtful, their INTENT is hurtful.

That's a very bad analogy. Words evolve to have different meanings. For example, the term "retarded" didn't have a negative meaning until it was adopted in slang to mean something beyond developmentally delayed and was used for the purpose of insult. "Flaming" is similar. "Gay" was not a common term for homosexual when West Side Story was in production. Even now the term isn't necessarily insulting. Saying someone is "flaming" has a particular connotation and never positive or neutral. It is always a term used when describing characteristics that are disapproved of by the speaker. Same reason I have a problem with the locals who defend the mascot of our high school - Savages. they want to claim they use it in a positive sense that honors Native Americans. Really? When have you ever heard Native Americans "savages" with a positive meaning? Probably the last time someone called a kid "flaming" in a positive way.

CaCO3Girl posted:
old_school posted:
2017LHPscrewball posted:

  In this case, the 16yo boy should not make a determination of "comfort level" based on the one interaction.  What if he visits campus and the first girl he sees in kind of plain - does he then write off the school because the girls are not pretty enough?

first impressions are kind of important, yes I think the son could strike the college very easily as place not worth the time investment for him. There thousands of schools out there and I am sure he will be able to find one that treats him extremely well.

OP referenced Dartmouth (no doubt great school) but maybe it is wrong for him regardless of the great school, maybe he would be a better fit at Notre Dame or Georgetown (or one of many others) where he finds somewhat different environment...again the beauty of the PC community is it only extends one way!!

One could almost equate this with the recruiters that see a kid with their hat on sideways and cross them off their list!  With SOOOO many choices how is a kid suppose to narrow this stuff down if it isn't by what they see, hear, and feel regarding the school?

My then 6 yo told me he didn't like the broccoli he was served at dinner - this was before he even tried it.  Said it didn't look good and he felt he wouldn't like it.  My then 6 yo was a smart kid - probably had the intelligence of an 8 yo.  

Me and my wife discussed the situation and decided that our then 6 yo had to eat his broccoli.  He really did not appreciate the nutritional value that we outlined but he did understand the it was in his best interest to eat it. Now, as a 10 yo, he actually likes broccoli.

Realize this is a stupid analogy, but we could have decided that there were lots of vegetables out there and presented a new one daily.  I have a feeling he would have "felt" that he didn't like any of them.  I'm guessing we would have run out of vegetable options long before he decided on his own that he liked one.  If he had hated the broccoli after trying it, perhaps we would no longer serve it to him, but we wanted him to go that extra step and try it.  And that made all the difference.  In summary, don't let your 6 yo decide which vegetables he likes without ever trying one.  Also, don't let your 16 yo make college choices based on reasons that probably, most likely, assuredly have nothing to do with the college itself. 

CaCO3Girl posted:
JCG posted:

In my experience the word "flaming" when applied to a gay person is usually followed by the words "faggot" or "fag". I hope those are terms we can agree on as not being polite or inoffensive.  Due to those customary usages, you can make the case that the word "flaming" all by itself carries the same connotation, so not really appropriate to describe anyone in a public conversation.   

Just my opinion, as I'm not a sworn officer of the PC police.

I do not agree.

Part of the PC police problem is that ordinary words are turned into something they may not have been intended to be, and what was once an adjective is now a noun.  Words have different meanings for different people.  The intent behind them matters greatly.

I don't think that when the Maria character in West Side Story sang the lyrics "I feel pretty, oh so pretty, I feel pretty and witty and gay." that she was in anyway coming out of the proverbial closet.

Words alone are not hurtful, their INTENT is hurtful.

So it's okay for a white guy like me to start asking every black person I meet, "What's up, n****r?"

Ok, thanks for clearing that up, and wish me luck.

2017LHPscrewball posted:
CaCO3Girl posted:
old_school posted:
2017LHPscrewball posted:

  In this case, the 16yo boy should not make a determination of "comfort level" based on the one interaction.  What if he visits campus and the first girl he sees in kind of plain - does he then write off the school because the girls are not pretty enough?

first impressions are kind of important, yes I think the son could strike the college very easily as place not worth the time investment for him. There thousands of schools out there and I am sure he will be able to find one that treats him extremely well.

OP referenced Dartmouth (no doubt great school) but maybe it is wrong for him regardless of the great school, maybe he would be a better fit at Notre Dame or Georgetown (or one of many others) where he finds somewhat different environment...again the beauty of the PC community is it only extends one way!!

One could almost equate this with the recruiters that see a kid with their hat on sideways and cross them off their list!  With SOOOO many choices how is a kid suppose to narrow this stuff down if it isn't by what they see, hear, and feel regarding the school?

My then 6 yo told me he didn't like the broccoli he was served at dinner - this was before he even tried it.  Said it didn't look good and he felt he wouldn't like it.  My then 6 yo was a smart kid - probably had the intelligence of an 8 yo.  

Me and my wife discussed the situation and decided that our then 6 yo had to eat his broccoli.  He really did not appreciate the nutritional value that we outlined but he did understand the it was in his best interest to eat it. Now, as a 10 yo, he actually likes broccoli.

Realize this is a stupid analogy, but we could have decided that there were lots of vegetables out there and presented a new one daily.  I have a feeling he would have "felt" that he didn't like any of them.  I'm guessing we would have run out of vegetable options long before he decided on his own that he liked one.  If he had hated the broccoli after trying it, perhaps we would no longer serve it to him, but we wanted him to go that extra step and try it.  And that made all the difference.  In summary, don't let your 6 yo decide which vegetables he likes without ever trying one.  Also, don't let your 16 yo make college choices based on reasons that probably, most likely, assuredly have nothing to do with the college itself. 

OK. Now I have to take a stand. Broccoli sucks. It just does. It really does. There can be no argument. I want to make it clear that I am 100% anti-broccoli.

JCG posted:
CaCO3Girl posted:
JCG posted:

In my experience the word "flaming" when applied to a gay person is usually followed by the words "faggot" or "fag". I hope those are terms we can agree on as not being polite or inoffensive.  Due to those customary usages, you can make the case that the word "flaming" all by itself carries the same connotation, so not really appropriate to describe anyone in a public conversation.   

Just my opinion, as I'm not a sworn officer of the PC police.

I do not agree.

Part of the PC police problem is that ordinary words are turned into something they may not have been intended to be, and what was once an adjective is now a noun.  Words have different meanings for different people.  The intent behind them matters greatly.

I don't think that when the Maria character in West Side Story sang the lyrics "I feel pretty, oh so pretty, I feel pretty and witty and gay." that she was in anyway coming out of the proverbial closet.

Words alone are not hurtful, their INTENT is hurtful.

So it's okay for a white guy like me to start asking every black person I meet, "What's up, n****r?"

Ok, thanks for clearing that up, and wish me luck.

Oh now swampboy is going to shut this party down for SURE!

In answer to your question, it's about INTENT.  I have known several black people that say that to each other and some of their white friends say it as well...FRIENDS being the operative word.  Their intent is not to demean or disparage.  Much like my intent was not to demean or disparage when I told my friend Troy "WOW, that outfit is REALLY flaming dude", his response "I KNOW isn't it WON-DER-FUL!", as he clapped his hands.

To bring this full circle, the word "flaming" is not a noun, it is an adjective, and is often used to describe an outfit or accessory that is over the top flamboyant.  In this case I can only assume the reps choice in jewelry was over the top flamboyant and see nothing wrong with what the 16 year old said to his dad when trying to DESCRIBE the meeting he used an adjective to DESCRIBE the rep.

old_school posted:
mdschert posted:
Matt13 posted:
mdschert posted:

Son has meeting at his HS with a visiting rep from a college he was interested in attending.  My son described him as a flaming gay guy wearing too much jewelry.  The info card he was given to complete had the usual contact info but also wanted to know if he was LGBTQ, it was one of 4 or 5 lines to complete.  So son now thinks the school is only recruiting the LGBTQ community and checked off his list.  Not that there is anything wrong with LGBTQ but why would a college want to be represented in that way?

I think that's a pretty big conclusion to which to jump.

I agree but we are talking about a 16 yr old.  I don't know if I can ever get him to consider the college again.  Are there other schools that want to know sexual preference from the get go?????  Why would this ever be part of an information gathering process?  

I guess I am not the most open minded person but I don't know that would consider him dismissing this school as a bad thing.

just MY opinion.

As colonel Klink would say "Dismiiiissseed"

CaCo3Girl,

LOL, knew that we were one step away from hearing that point.  

So, I have British friends who call each other the C word all the time so I guess it's ok to use it here because I would mean it in a friendly way?

In deference to the moderators, and because this is a baseball board, my final word on this is:

No.

 

Last edited by JCG

Assuming the questionnaire is as stated here it is an innapropriate question. Period. However if it was in the context of accommodating folks (maybe to know if you should be housed where there are transgender bathrooms?) perhaps it would be different.  However what is in that questionnaire very much outlines the general philosophy of the school. If the young man is uncomfortable with that why does he not have a right to those feelings?  He just doesn't want to go there. He didn't say he wants to go and bash members of that community or spend his life fighting against their causes. Just that this school ain't for him. Big deal. As for the 'calling names'...  Who gets to decide what is offensive?  I don't think there are a whole lot of folks that want to be called white trash but I don't see crusades against that. How about the term 'Jesus freak'. Hear it all the time. Gonna tell me that's not offensive??  But we're gonna freak out over flaming???  And who can keep up?  I just heard on TV last night that the term 'Oriental' is now offensive. I have a reasonable IQ and a college degree and I had no idea. I still don't understand why. Shall we post an updated list monthly on a news bulletin or something?  "Beep...   Beep... Beep.  This is a message from the emergency PC broadcasting system.  The following words are being added to the banished list...  For the complete list of disallowed words please go to www.PC.gov.  We now return to our regularly scheduled liberal programming."

JCG posted:
CaCO3Girl posted:
JCG posted:

In my experience the word "flaming" when applied to a gay person is usually followed by the words "faggot" or "fag". I hope those are terms we can agree on as not being polite or inoffensive.  Due to those customary usages, you can make the case that the word "flaming" all by itself carries the same connotation, so not really appropriate to describe anyone in a public conversation.   

Just my opinion, as I'm not a sworn officer of the PC police.

I do not agree.

Part of the PC police problem is that ordinary words are turned into something they may not have been intended to be, and what was once an adjective is now a noun.  Words have different meanings for different people.  The intent behind them matters greatly.

I don't think that when the Maria character in West Side Story sang the lyrics "I feel pretty, oh so pretty, I feel pretty and witty and gay." that she was in anyway coming out of the proverbial closet.

Words alone are not hurtful, their INTENT is hurtful.

So it's okay for a white guy like me to start asking every black person I meet, "What's up, n****r?"

Ok, thanks for clearing that up, and wish me luck.

Chris Rock says yes but with rather tight rules. Trigger alert this has a lot of language that someone will be upset about.  https://youtu.be/qPDetBACaU0

 

2020dad posted:

Assuming the questionnaire is as stated here it is an innapropriate question. Period. 

All we have to go on, unless I missed a post, is that the "card" he got asked "if was LGBTQ."  I don't think that's remotely enough to assume the actual question was inappropriate. We also have a characterization of the rep as "flaming" and "wearing too much jewelry". Flaming does connote Big Gay Al levels of flamboyance to me (NTTAWWT), but too much jewelry could mean anything, and I can't really even see how that would be a gay-specific issue.

I still find it difficult to believe that anyone a semi-worldly 16-yo in this day and age would consider calling flaming would be an actual college rep, but if we're taking him at his word on that, the only issue that he should really have is that the college does a lousy job of picking local reps, since he's clearly not homophobic. I haven't been 16 for 30 years now, but even stereotypical "flaming gay guy" wouldn't have dissuaded me from considering my alma mater. But then I also didn't have a problem sharing a fraternity house with a couple of actual homosexuals and more than a few stereo-typically over the top heterosexuals, as well.

And, please, give the PC police thing a rest.  Conflating liberal thought with the idea that it might be a good idea not to be unintentionally offensive is a kind of a sign.

However what is in that questionnaire very much outlines the general philosophy of the school. If the young man is uncomfortable with that why does he not have a right to those feelings?  He just doesn't want to go there. He didn't say he wants to go and bash members of that community or spend his life fighting against their causes. Just that this school ain't for him.

Once again I wasn't paying close enough attention - went back and looked at the first article and have a additional thoughts.  What if one of the schools the kid really, really really wants to go to, the school where lots of last year's senior "guys" ended up at and several classmates are heading to - what if that school used the Common Application?  Does that mean he should strike that school - and every other school that uses the Common Application - because that application now allows you to apparently check something other than Male/Female?  That sounds like a wise move.

Setting aside most of the discussion so far, my advice to the OP is to sit his kid down, tell him to grow up a little and go visit the school and see if he really likes it - or not.  To advise the OP to let his 16 yo son make a snap decision based on the contents of an information card (asking for 8 pieces of information - including gender which is expanded beyond M/F) and a colorfully dressed, bejeweled man (I believe this is how he was described) is, in my opinion, poor advice.

The OP said as much as wanting his kid to visit the school.  Do you really think the OP should sit back and "respect" his 16 yo son's "decision"?

I think asking if you are LBGTQ is beyond asking for gender - M/F. It is asking for your bedroom preferences. In my opinion, that is no one's business. Especially asking that of a 16 year old. 

Of course, these days, male and female seems to be an ambiguous concept. What has happened in our society if we can't even determine between male and female??  And what's with the Q anyway?  I guess it stands for questionable?  Wouldn't the B take care of that?  Man...

i really think all this is being taken too far. Laws being made for less than 3% of the population that may (and does in many cases) offend 97% of the population. I've got nothing against LGBTQ people. What people do in the bedroom is their own business. But, keep it to yourself. I don't feel a need to run around telling everyone I'm heterosexual. If you ask me, having someone fill out a questionnaire asking Name, Adress, Age, Grade and are you LBGTQ is just a little bizarre. Maybe if there were a bunch of other socio economic stuff as well, it might be ok. But, with just that one question with a couple other general things, something else is going on. 

Bballman,  I take it you did not read the articles I posted earlier in this thread. The Q stands for queer. The question on the questionnaires is an issue that is being pushed by the LGBTQ society  to help colleges recognize and accommodate non-traditional gender rolled students.  I believe the exact question is birth sex male or female and that is followed with do you identify with the LGBTQ community.

 People are free to lie about that question. However, if I were a homosexual man or a homosexual woman I might feel uncomfortable rooming with a person of the same sex. Much like any heterosexual man or woman may feel uncomfortable  rooming with a person of the opposite sex.   In college I think it's important for people to remember that almost everyone has roommates, if you live in the dorms you have communal bathrooms, there is the potential to be uncomfortable if you identify with a gender that you weren't born.  

 If you put yourself into their shoes, it's pretty clear and easy to understand what the problem is and why many colleges are addressing the problem. It isn't that they want to find out what you do in the bedroom, they want to make a living experience comfortable for all involved and avoid confrontation.

 For someone that is born male but in their brain has identified as a woman for their entire lives, I could see how that person would be uncomfortable in an all male dorm with over 300 men living there,  just as a woman would be uncomfortable being the only woman in a 300 person dorm full of men. Now what  happens when the dorm finds out that this one male thinks of himself as a woman, and he likes men.   What are the odds of 300 17 year-old boys being perfectly fine with that??? I don't like those odds. 

bballman posted:

I think asking if you are LBGTQ is beyond asking for gender - M/F. It is asking for your bedroom preferences. In my opinion, that is no one's business. Especially asking that of a 16 year old. 

Of course, these days, male and female seems to be an ambiguous concept. What has happened in our society if we can't even determine between male and female??  And what's with the Q anyway?  I guess it stands for questionable?  Wouldn't the B take care of that?  Man...

i really think all this is being taken too far. Laws being made for less than 3% of the population that may (and does in many cases) offend 97% of the population. I've got nothing against LGBTQ people. What people do in the bedroom is their own business. But, keep it to yourself. I don't feel a need to run around telling everyone I'm heterosexual. If you ask me, having someone fill out a questionnaire asking Name, Adress, Age, Grade and are you LBGTQ is just a little bizarre. Maybe if there were a bunch of other socio economic stuff as well, it might be ok. But, with just that one question with a couple other general things, something else is going on. 

Replace LGBTQ with a race question, and re-read your objections.  It sounds a more than a little like George Wallace. And I don't mean that in a flippant manner, at all.

A little reading on human (and, really, mammal/animal) sexuality might be enlightening as well.  It's not as simple as hetero/homo or even M/F. That's not a societal issue, it's a biological one that our current society is only sort of trying to come to grips with.

 

I've read Queer and Questionable. What's the difference between Queer and Lesbian or Gay??

And what if a guy identifies with being a woman and wants to be in the women's dorm?  Do you think the 299 women are going to be comfortable with the man who identifies as a woman being in their dorm or taking showers with him in the communal shower?  What's more important?  Making the one guy who identifies as a woman comfortable or making sure the 299 women feel comfortable?  It's not even a question in my mind. 

You could make separate facilities for the LGBTQ people, but wouldn't that be even more George Wallaceish?  

I think a person needs to be comfortable with themself. It's not up to everyone else to make them feel comfortable. That is completely different than race relations in the pre 1960s days. There were laws then that prohibited blacks from doing the same things as whites. We have not had any laws prohibiting these people from doing what they want - other than marriage, which has been addressed. Making laws to force the majority to be responsible for the comfort of the very few is government overstepping its bounds. It's one thing to legislate exclusivity (that's wrong and those laws needed to be eradicated). It's another to legislate inclusivity. 

jacjacatk posted:
bballman posted:

I think asking if you are LBGTQ is beyond asking for gender - M/F. It is asking for your bedroom preferences. In my opinion, that is no one's business. Especially asking that of a 16 year old. 

Of course, these days, male and female seems to be an ambiguous concept. What has happened in our society if we can't even determine between male and female??  And what's with the Q anyway?  I guess it stands for questionable?  Wouldn't the B take care of that?  Man...

i really think all this is being taken too far. Laws being made for less than 3% of the population that may (and does in many cases) offend 97% of the population. I've got nothing against LGBTQ people. What people do in the bedroom is their own business. But, keep it to yourself. I don't feel a need to run around telling everyone I'm heterosexual. If you ask me, having someone fill out a questionnaire asking Name, Adress, Age, Grade and are you LBGTQ is just a little bizarre. Maybe if there were a bunch of other socio economic stuff as well, it might be ok. But, with just that one question with a couple other general things, something else is going on. 

Replace LGBTQ with a race question, and re-read your objections.  It sounds a more than a little like George Wallace. And I don't mean that in a flippant manner, at all.

A little reading on human (and, really, mammal/animal) sexuality might be enlightening as well.  It's not as simple as hetero/homo or even M/F. That's not a societal issue, it's a biological one that our current society is only sort of trying to come to grips with.

 

of course you mean it in a flippant way, there is no way you can make the analogy and not be flippant.

I don't doubt you have good intentions but a college asking the sexual orientation of a 16 year old on an application is F***** up! In my mind there is no way around this, the question is just not relevant to the application and shouldn't be there. I would ago as far as to argue it is discriminatory and I could argue that on either side it is such terrible question.

If you can't see an app or being asked by a recruiter isn't the appropriate place (assuming there is an appropriate place somewhere else) I don't know what could be agreed on for this topic. Keep in mind I am private guy, I don't force anything on people and I honestly don't care how they live.

I has a doctor apt a few weeks ago and was asked by my doctor about guns in the house ? why?? I learned that apparently is now required by our government...Why would I respond to that question? It is as stupid as asking my son his sexuality. I told them is was stupid question and none of their business, next question please.

There is separate housing available, or other accommodations.  They aren't wanting to put one man in a dorm of women because of how he feels about his sexual identity.  

What is the solution other than to ask everyone and anyone that answers in the affirmative they follow up with?  

The laws are slowly changing but how many people do you think have gone through college unable to be themselves in their own room?  How many LGBTQ people have been killed or beaten because they were themselves.  It isn't just a matter of being comfortable like a blanket is comfortable it's giving the 3% the ability to be themselves without the fear of persecution.  

They aren't trying to take over the world and change the way other people live, they just want to stop hiding who they are. There are many who make the choice to hide, act "normal", it eats them up inside daily and often results in suicide. Again, shoe on the other foot time...every heterosexual man on this board could you pretend to be homosexual in public?  How about hiding from your roommate for years that you actually like girls not guys?  All your interests must line up with what is accepted in the homosexual world, you must be careful not to show any hetero leanings or someone might come after you....how good is your college experience?  What if I told you you HAD to wear dresses from now on?  Everyone comfortable with that?

Yes, it's a small percentage but it doesn't mean they shouldn't have the right to be themselves. 

CACO3GIRL, there are laws against those things. It's called assault and battery. It is against the law to beat someone up. Whether they are homosexual or not. Once again, making laws to guarantee that your attitude is viewed as acceptable is WAY overboard. It's akin to making it a law that says I can't get mad if the drive thru gives me the wrong meal. You can't legislate people's feelings. This is the height of the PC movement. I know you are smarter than that. 

And what laws are there that legislate identity segregation?  That men use the men's room and women use the women's room?  That's a LOT different than you can't stay in the same hotel or can't eat in the same restaurant or can't drink out of the same water fountain, etc...  

Now that we've fully discussed all aspects of this situation, wouldn't everyone agree that the presence of that question on the information card is simply a new question aimed at assisting this minority of students and not a indication that the school strongly encourages growth in this population?  The school is probably pretty much the same as it was before this question was included (maybe a little more tolerant) and therefore this question's presence should not allow a mature parent to let his mid-pubescent son decide the school is now no longer acceptable.  I wonder if Stanford offered some kid, but the kid had to fill out the application and balked, would mom and dad be happy then - or would they quickly have the "grow up" talk on the spot.

I think this thread is now getting further from baseball than the one that started with football ever did.

2017LHPscrewball posted:

However what is in that questionnaire very much outlines the general philosophy of the school. If the young man is uncomfortable with that why does he not have a right to those feelings?  He just doesn't want to go there. He didn't say he wants to go and bash members of that community or spend his life fighting against their causes. Just that this school ain't for him.

Once again I wasn't paying close enough attention - went back and looked at the first article and have a additional thoughts.  What if one of the schools the kid really, really really wants to go to, the school where lots of last year's senior "guys" ended up at and several classmates are heading to - what if that school used the Common Application?  Does that mean he should strike that school - and every other school that uses the Common Application - because that application now allows you to apparently check something other than Male/Female?  That sounds like a wise move.

Setting aside most of the discussion so far, my advice to the OP is to sit his kid down, tell him to grow up a little and go visit the school and see if he really likes it - or not.  To advise the OP to let his 16 yo son make a snap decision based on the contents of an information card (asking for 8 pieces of information - including gender which is expanded beyond M/F) and a colorfully dressed, bejeweled man (I believe this is how he was described) is, in my opinion, poor advice.

The OP said as much as wanting his kid to visit the school.  Do you really think the OP should sit back and "respect" his 16 yo son's "decision"?

Yes.  That is the short answer. The longer answer is you have to be comfortable with your decision. It's funny cause in here we constantly say that high school kids - including freshman - have to start handling their own affairs.  Talk to the coaches not that meddling helicopter parent the evil of all evils. Then when a 16 year old decided he doesn't like how a school represented itself and would prefer to look at one of the other thousand schools available to him you say dad should step in. Sit him down, order him to rethink etc.  guidance is always good for our kids. And of course parents should help their kids when they are freshmen, seniors, in college and when they are 45!  But why is this kid wrong?  And what if dad agrees with him?  What is the problem with that?  Isn't it ok to seek a school that is more in alignment with your own personal philosophies?  

bballman posted:

2017, if this question was one of many socio economic questions, I would say yes. Being that is was the ONLY socio economic question, it raises a flag to me. I did not go through the common applications linked in this thread, but I would guess that there were many other questions asked on those forms.  

That's a big "if." Personally I have trouble believing the story is complete. We all know how well 16 year olds relay information. It could also be that this kid mistakenly stumbled into a recruiter that was there specifically for the LGBTQ community the same way very specific groups like ROTC and different organizations based on race or interests will visit schools and he didn't know it. Again, my experience with 16yo boys doesn't reinforce confidence in their ability to recognize or recall specifics.

However, back to more important subjects - broccoli sucks.

roothog66 posted:
bballman posted:

2017, if this question was one of many socio economic questions, I would say yes. Being that is was the ONLY socio economic question, it raises a flag to me. I did not go through the common applications linked in this thread, but I would guess that there were many other questions asked on those forms.  

That's a big "if." Personally I have trouble believing the story is complete. We all know how well 16 year olds relay information. It could also be that this kid mistakenly stumbled into a recruiter that was there specifically for the LGBTQ community the same way very specific groups like ROTC and different organizations based on race or interests will visit schools and he didn't know it. Again, my experience with 16yo boys doesn't reinforce confidence in their ability to recognize or recall specifics.

However, back to more important subjects - broccoli sucks.

Are you serious?

Roasted broccoli is awesome.

bballman posted:

... having someone fill out a questionnaire asking Name, Adress, Age, Grade and are you LBGTQ is just a little bizarre. Maybe if there were a bunch of other socio economic stuff as well, it might be ok. But, with just that one question with a couple other general things, something else is going on. 

This.  Context.

Many of the posts in this thread are digging deep into the whole set of issues surrounding acceptance of the LBGTQ community.  If the guy behind the booth is there representing the LBGTQ community (and has marketing materials stating such) and trying to gather information with interest to that cause, all well and good.  But if he is there representing the school in general as an overall "information station" for the school (and has marketing materials stating such), this question is out of context and out of line considering the general and limited nature of the other questions. 

CaCo, I believe that the schools in the links you provided make it more clear when they are addressing the issue, how they are addressing it and what their position is.

PS - I see that root posted something similar while I was typing.  Similar thought - very good added point regarding observations of a 16yo.  

I'm really on the fence, though on the broccoli and brussel sprouts.  Cooked or raw?  How much mayo and lemon juice is allowed?

Last edited by cabbagedad
jacjacatk posted:
roothog66 posted:
bballman posted:

2017, if this question was one of many socio economic questions, I would say yes. Being that is was the ONLY socio economic question, it raises a flag to me. I did not go through the common applications linked in this thread, but I would guess that there were many other questions asked on those forms.  

That's a big "if." Personally I have trouble believing the story is complete. We all know how well 16 year olds relay information. It could also be that this kid mistakenly stumbled into a recruiter that was there specifically for the LGBTQ community the same way very specific groups like ROTC and different organizations based on race or interests will visit schools and he didn't know it. Again, my experience with 16yo boys doesn't reinforce confidence in their ability to recognize or recall specifics.

However, back to more important subjects - broccoli sucks.

Are you serious?

Roasted broccoli is awesome.

I had thought we could be friends, but not if this is the kind of guy you really are.

It is an "if" roothog. But we really have to take the OP at his word. And I'll tell you this. If a recruiter had come to my son as an ROTC rep, he would have declined. I appreciate the military and so does my son, but he has made it clear he doesn't want to be in the military. Doesn't mean he thinks the military is wrong, it's just not for him. I know if a recruiter came to us wearing jeans, flip-flops and a tie dyed t-shirt, I don't think we'd want to go to that program either. Doesn't mean I don't appreciate that guy's choice in clothes or want to change his preference for the style, but it wouldn't be for us. I don't see this as any different. 

And BTW, brussle sprouts are WAY worse than broccoli.

Last edited by bballman
mdschert posted:

Son has meeting at his HS with a visiting rep from a college he was interested in attending.  My son described him as a flaming gay guy wearing too much jewelry.  The info card he was given to complete had the usual contact info but also wanted to know if he was LGBTQ, it was one of 4 or 5 lines to complete.  So son now thinks the school is only recruiting the LGBTQ community and checked off his list.  Not that there is anything wrong with LGBTQ but why would a college want to be represented in that way?

If he wants to play baseball, next time get the info by taking a trip to visit the coaches and campus.

 

Then when a 16 year old decided he doesn't like how a school represented itself and would prefer to look at one of the other thousand schools available to him you say dad should step in. Sit him down, order him to rethink etc.  guidance is always good for our kids.

In other words, turn your 16 yo loose and ask him nicely to report back when he gets finished with some minor details of where he is attending on how it is getting paid for.  Maybe have an interesting talk by the fire his junior year about how he whittled down his thousands of choices to this one and sit back, warm your feet by the fire and congratulate him on a job well done.  

I must have a defective child cause that would not work in our household.  Kind of like when he burns popcorn in the microwave.  Directions say heat on high for 3-5 minutes - depending on wattage.  Kid sticks in in for 5 minutes and seems baffled as to why its burnt.  I'm not going to start cooking his popcorn, but I'll take this opportunity to explain the directions and let him know he's dealing with some higher wattages.  Better that than him going around the rest of his life saying that microwave burnt everything he put in it.

On a serous note, no kid realistically starts out with 1,000 college options.  For various reasons - excluding baseball - that number is probably no bigger than 100 max.  Throw in some baseball and the number maybe drops to 10 once things get serious.  Would hate to cross off one of those possible 10 on day one cause some guy is wearing too much jewelry.  If you don't think that is a reasonable piece of guidance to offer your son, then by all means let him decide.  I would think it would be a valuable piece of guidance.

jacjacatk posted:
roothog66 posted:
bballman posted:

2017, if this question was one of many socio economic questions, I would say yes. Being that is was the ONLY socio economic question, it raises a flag to me. I did not go through the common applications linked in this thread, but I would guess that there were many other questions asked on those forms.  

That's a big "if." Personally I have trouble believing the story is complete. We all know how well 16 year olds relay information. It could also be that this kid mistakenly stumbled into a recruiter that was there specifically for the LGBTQ community the same way very specific groups like ROTC and different organizations based on race or interests will visit schools and he didn't know it. Again, my experience with 16yo boys doesn't reinforce confidence in their ability to recognize or recall specifics.

However, back to more important subjects - broccoli sucks.

Are you serious?

Roasted broccoli is awesome.

Roasted Cauliflower is awesome. Roasting broccoli doesn't work.

This question, as described, was JUST ODD to me.  It has nothing to do with being tolerant of others, or PC, or anything else.  I think the question was odd, on what was described as a very generic info card, with no relevance to the rest of the limited questions asked.  And perhaps too early in the process for obtaining that kind of information.  Should they have included a "Do you have any food allergies?"  question just so they could send further information on their cafeteria's resources for those with allergies?  I could see having handouts available that describe various housing options (i.e., single sex dorm, co-ed, married housing, etc.), or clubs/greek life (including those for LGBTQ), or meal plans for those with allergies, or whatever, but why ask if the student is married, or LGBTQ, or has food allergies (or an aversion or preference for broccoli, cauliflower, or brussel sprouts) at that early stage?

 

I hated broccoli (and brussel sprouts) growing up.  My son loved broccoli. I still didn't like broccoli but made him try them because I don't necessarily want some of my bias and prejudices to rub off on my children.  About 5 years ago, I tried some Sprouts again. They are darn good now. Broccoli is too. As is squash. But all of above tastes better grilled. Remember what our parents said, our tastes buds change every 7 years  

Still can't handle many uncooked green vegetables though. Maybe when I reach my 60's.

Ps: root, I hope we can still be friends. If you're ever in Texas, I will cook you up some!!!

Add Reply

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×