Cross-dressing fetish tied in with Day of Silence for 8 year olds

April 14, 2010 08:41 AM EDT (Updated: April 14, 2010 03:55 PM EDT)

views: 152 | 3 people recommend this | comments: 17

The Maude Wilkins Elementary School sent a 16 page letter home to parents telling them to dress their boys up in female clothes, "suggesting cheerleader outfits and poodle skirts" for children in the 3rd and 4th grade.

This was for a fashion show to coincide with the Day of Silence, to raise awareness of the bullying of gay and lesbian students.

As a parent who had 3 children, I know that it is tough enough for some kids to escape teasing and bullying.

Wouldn't emulating a cross-dressing fetish put kids more at risk for teasing in the future?

Is this part of the reason our children score so low in math and reading?

What are schools trying to do to 8 and 9 year olds? On the school's website, they are also planning to make April 14th, Grandparents and Special Friends Day.

What type of special friends do they want kids to bring to school, pedophiles?

As expected, parents flooded the School Superintendent's email after reading this nonsense the school planned, and the fashion show was cancelled.

I'm glad my kids are almost finished with school. Anyone who does not want their child exposed to this indoctrination of children, especially 3rd and 4th grades, should seriously consider not sending their children to public school.

I don't think this is what Geraldine had in mind:

"What you see is what you get", sums up the education of kids in public school is receiving these days.

Shouldn't there be more thorough background checks on teachers?

The depravity of society is now being forced upon elementary school kids! What has happened to us?

Updated April 13, 2010

N.J. Elementary School Cancels 'Cross-Dressing' Fashion Show After Complaints

By Joshua Rhett Miller

- FOXNews.com

A school superintendent in New Jersey says a "misunderstanding" led an elementary school teacher to mandate that all students -- including young boys -- dress as women in a now-canceled fashion show to honor Women's History Month.

• PRINT
• EMAIL
• SHARE
• RECOMMEND (13)

Some suggested styles for elementary school boys at a now canceled fashion show at New Jersey's Maude Wilkins Elementary.

A school superintendent in New Jersey says a "misunderstanding" led an elementary school teacher to mandate that all students -- including young boys -- dress as women in a now-canceled fashion show to honor Women's History Month.

Maple Shade Township School Superintendent Michael Livengood said the show, which had been scheduled for Friday at Maude Wilkins Elementary School, has been canceled.

"I wish the letter had been clearer and had been worded differently," Livengood told FoxNews.com, referring to a letter sent home to the children's parents last week informing them of the assignment. "But it was a misunderstanding. It was meant to demonstrate students' awareness in women's roles, and along with that, their changes in fashion over time."

In a 16-page packet sent home with students, teacher Tonya Uibel alerted parents that all students in her third grade class would have to participate in the activity, since it would be graded as an "end of unit" assignment. The packet also included suggestions of how students may dress, including fashions from the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s like bellbottoms, poodle skirts and cheerleader outfits. Photographs of fashion icons like Twiggy and Madonna are also included.

"If your child is a young man, he does not have to wear a dress or skirt, as there are many time periods where women wore jeans, pants and trousers. However, each child must be able to express what time period their outfit is from. Most of all, your child should have fun creating their outfit and learning about how women's clothing has changed!"

Livengood said students will now be asked to a draw a picture of a person dressed in clothing from a specific time period as the lessonplan's culminating project.

He said the school's principal, Beth Narcia, had not received "one single" complaint pertaining to the event from parents. But one parent told FoxNews.com she contacted Uibel directly after her 9-year-old son came home "in tears" after getting the assignment.

"My son was very upset," said Janine Giandomenico. "He said, 'Mommy, please don't make me do this.'"

Giandomenico said her son has Asperger's syndrome, a social interaction disorder, and she feared he would expose himself to ridicule from other students if he participated in the show.

"My husband and I are very open-minded, but this is a decision for my son to make when he's old enough to understand it," Giandomenico said. "I thought it was wrong. I felt like I had to say something."

She said she also found it "very odd" that the event was scheduled to coincide with an anti-bullying "Day of Silence" organized by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network, which is encouraging students nationwide to remain mute during classes on Friday to call attention to verbal and physical abuse of gay students.

Instead of dressing in historical garments, Giandomenico said she suggested to Uibel that students create skits to memorialize significant moments in history pertaining to women. She also questioned why the fashion show idea was approved at all.

"They chose this route," she said. "And I'm positive that my little boy was not the only one who felt uncomfortable doing this. I'm just being honest. So I felt I had to open my mouth."

In a letter dated Monday, Narcia informed parents that the show, which was to be videotaped, had been canceled. She apologized for "any confusion or frustration" the assignment may have caused.

"I wanted to clear up any misconceptions about the clothing show," the principal wrote. "It was never our intention to have boys dress up as women. There are many different time periods that had women and men dressing in pants, suits, and even sweat suits. Students were just asked to dress as a time period, not as a woman. The children were then being asked to identify their time period of dress."

Calls to the school seeking comment were referred to Livengood.

Stacy Bowen, a mother of two young children in Bucks County, Pa., said she contacted the school's principal after seeing Giandomenico's Facebook posts on the matter.

"I was just so outraged," Bowen said. "I find it completely alarming that a school would do this."

Bowen said she also found it "ironic" that the event was scheduled on the "Day of Silence."

"It's a step out of line," she said. "You're forcing boys to participate in this, yet you stand for anti-bullying. They may feel pressured to do it when they don't want to."

Bowen, whose children are ages 2 and 5, said she would take matters into her own hands if a similar event were held in her school district's classrooms.

"I would've kept my child home," she said. "It's a step too far to portray boys in this manner."

KIRK: Protest Day of Silence?

• Story
• Discussion

By RICHARD KIRK -- For the North County Times/The Californian | Posted: April 13, 2010 12:01 am | (3) Comments| Print

Font Size:

Default font size

Larger font size

• Share9

Friday has been designated a Day of Silence in most of the nation's schools by the Gay, Lesbian and Straight Education Network. That day, many high school (and some middle school) students won't speak during the day in order to show solidarity with gay classmates.

This now-annual event raises a plethora of questions about student rights and the role public schools should play vis-a-vis controversial political and social agendas.

There would be little to object to if the Day of Silence were dedicated only to the proposition that students shouldn't be subjected to slurs of any kind ---- racial, religious, ethnic,or sexual. In my 20 years in the classroom, I enforced this no-slur policy across the board.

GLSEN and similar organizations, however, aren't merely anti-defamation leagues. Rather, they have broader political agendas that concern fundamental social issues about which there is deep public disagreement ---- a fact illustrated in spades by the passionate debate on California's Proposition 8.

The question that arises for school administrators is how to respond to these "silent" student demonstrations. Do they ignore them, discourage them or facilitate and build upon them?

Given the fact that the California Teachers Association gave $1.3 million to the "No on 8" campaign, it is safe to assume that most public schools will be inclined to take the "facilitation" route ---- with some teachers seizing upon this "teachable moment" to further indoctrinate students with their own gay-lesbian-bisexual-transgender vision of society.

This vision, more implicit than explicit, includes the conviction that sexual orientation is purely a genetic given and that male-female households are no more beneficial to children and society than households or relationships of any other sexual configuration.

The fairly obvious truth, however, is that children benefit from male-female domestic models and that human sexual expression is a matter of gradations ---- not a function of gay-straight absolutes. Gradations, however, aren't congenial to folks who place sexual activity in the same black-white categories as race.

Accordingly, the label "bisexual" is regularly employed by youngsters posting at GLSEN's blog to lend an aura of genetic inevitability to actions once termed promiscuous.

Most public schools, I'm confident, would give absolutely no support to a student-led "Day of Silence" that defended the "silent scream" rights of an unborn child. Indeed, many administrators would probably cooperate with the ACLU to prohibit ---- like student prayers at graduation ---- the overt expression of these "religious" beliefs.

Parents who object to having public schools promote a GLBT social agenda should think seriously about keeping their kids home from school on Friday ---- especially if administrators aren't forthcoming about their "Day of Silence" plans.

RICHARD KIRK writes from Menifee. Contact him at kirkrg@netzero.com.

AN EXCELLENT READ!!!

DEFENDING TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE
It Starts with You
Willard F. Harley, Jr.
Revell
Family & Relationships/Marriage
ISBN: 0800731093

Willard F. Harley, Jr., author of the bestselling title HIS NEEDS, HER NEEDS, has compiled substantial and troubling evidence that clearly delineates how society contributes to the breakdown of the primary family unit, marriage. Harley, a clinical psychologist who has frequently been called to testify before judiciary committees on behalf of traditional marriage and family legislation, views such changes in law as key components as to how viable marriages will be in the coming years. According to the author, traditional marriage is defined as "...a permanent (as long as you both shall live) and sexually exclusive (forsaking all others) relationship of extraordinary care (love, comfort, honor, and keep, etc.) between a man (to be your husband) and a woman (to be your wife)." However, the latest wave of court decisions is eroding the very foundation of this fundamental societal relationship.

Harley says that the last 75 years have seen the denigration of marriage sneak its way into the mindset of the masses by undermining the very oath of commitment itself. He also believes that men and women must rethink the whole institution of marriage by daily, and concertedly, living out the four essential ingredients vital to a marriage that not only stands the test of time, but thrives and continues to be characterized by romantic love.

Having interviewed and counseled thousands of married couples during the course of his career, Harley believes there are four must-haves in every marriage:

*Extraordinary Care: the decision to care for one's spouse during the good and the bad times, despite waning emotions or adverse circumstances.

*Sexual Exclusivity: forsaking all others and guarding this area of the relationship so that infidelity doesn't cause a freefall to destruction and demise in the marriage.

*Permanence: creating an environment of safety and continuity for the benefit and protection of all family members.

*One Man and One Woman: the ideal environment for raising happy and successful children.

Once this defining foundation is set and clearly understood, the author spends the remainder of his text showing couples how to love one another in very practical ways. By understanding the inherent strength of intimate emotional needs, Harley empowers married men and women with the tools necessary to protect their marriage from outside attacks (affairs) or inside sabotage (apathy or contempt). Since emotional needs are so potent and so necessary for a growing marriage, Harley pooled the most cited (and desired) needs for men and women. The top needs included: admiration, affection, conversation, domestic support, family commitment, financial support, honesty and openness, physical attractiveness, recreational companionship, and sexual fulfillment. Men in general noted that sexual fulfillment and recreational companionship topped their list. Women needed affection and intimate conversation most. Harley wisely notes that men and women must meet the key needs of their spouse and not assume that their mate's wants mirror their own. When couples begin acting in ways that fulfill their spouse's most intimate emotional needs, safeguards are immediately erected and the marriage begins to take on new romantic life (thereby helping to ensure a lasting, viable marriage).

Harley provides numerous scenarios where men and women have neglected their partner to the eventual demise of the marriage. Yet the overall tone of this book is one of optimism and hope. The author believes that successful, happy marriages can overcome the statistical slide to divorce. Best of all, he provides readers with the resources and tools to make it happen. Every married couple would benefit from this excellent and substantial primer on making marriages all that God intended.


--- Reviewed by Michele Howe

23,000 teachers lost their jobs this week. Maybe the teacher's union shouldn't have given that $1 million to oppose Prop 8 a year and half ago. Maybe they should have used that money for finding a way to help those teachers keep their jobs instead of making a political statement.

Women’s dignity: the forgotten agenda

Can we judge the status of a woman by her pay check? Have women arrived when they have half the seats in the legislature and their husbands do half the chores at home? This is Part I of a symposium by Mercatornet.com on improving the status of women by 2020. Dr. Jennifer Roback Morse's take on the situation: Motherhood within marriage is a worthy choice I have a radical idea for promoting the dignity of women: the idea that giving birth to children inside marriage is good and worthy use of one’s time and talent. This idea has come under assault from many directions. We hear that intelligent women should use their minds, by giving priority to career. Taking care of children is for losers with nothing better to do. We hear that independent women should not rely on men financially. It is better to have a child alone, or to be childless, than to be financially interdependent with the child’s father. We hear there is no urgency to having children. If you haven’t found a husband, if you haven’t made the time to become a mother naturally, you can always use artificial insemination with donor sperm, to become a mother at the time of your own choosing. If we accept these ideas, we lose essential features of being a female human: an appreciation of woman’s natural life-giving powers, of woman’s desire for lasting relationships, and of woman’s intrinsic delight in bringing forth new life. Male and female are two different ways of being human. Without women being women, men too, are diminished. The uniquely feminine becomes obscured to us all, much to the loss of woman’s intrinsic dignity.

Political Powerlessness in Action

Dear Friends,

You may recall from one of my earlier e-mails that the plaintiffs’ lawyers, in their bid to overturn Prop 8, asserted during the Perry v Schwarzenegger federal trial that homosexuals are “politically powerless.” They tried to make the case that this alleged political disadvantage is so extreme that it must be corrected by providing homosexuals special protection under the United States Constitution.

When our team of able legal experts questioned the plaintiffs’ witnesses on this matter, they were forced to acknowledge that the “gay agenda” has a bevy of esteemed and active elected officials in their stable of support, including both California U.S. Senators, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, the Governor, the current, openly homosexual California Assembly Speaker, several openly homosexual state senators and/or assembly members, the current mayors of California’s largest cities and the state’s Attorney General.

By that measure alone, it is difficult to accept the notion that homosexuals are a politically powerless lot. Let’s not be naïve, the homosexual lobby holds powerful sway over what goes on in the halls of our state Capitol.

Further, last Friday was the final day lawmakers could introduce legislation in the current session. And guess what? California’s largest homosexual advocacy group, Equality California, sponsored three bills to further advance their agenda, one of which would eliminate what they consider a barrier to legalizing same-sex marriage.

Senate Bill 906 was introduced by openly-gay Senator Mark Leno, who has carried the gay lobby’s water since he was elected. It removes from current law any obligation by clergy to “marry” same-sex partners and prevents their refusal from having any negative implications on a synagogue or church’s tax-exempt status.

While “divorcing” religious marriage from civil marriage, this bill further exemplifies just how cunning the homosexual lobby can be. In fact, much can be read into Senator Leno’s comment in the Bay Area Reporter when he said religious entities “have no business interfering with the fundamental right of everyone's access to marriage."

Equality California may promote this bill as nothing more than a way to clarify the issue for people who are “confused about the difference between civil marriage and religious marriage,” but what they are really after is a way – any way – to invalidate the votes of 7 million Californians who voted to keep marriage between a man and a woman.

Parsing words the way they are with SB 906 is just another clear example of how powerful the homosexual lobby is in exerting its political influence on the rest of society.

On another note, Friday was a big day for our legal team in the Perry v Schwarzenegger case. After weeks of work following the conclusion of the evidentiary portion of the trial, our team submitted our post-trial briefings to Judge Vaughn Walker.

We appreciate all of your prayers and financial support throughout these trial proceedings. This is just the first step in a long legal battle to preserve traditional marriage. We are now waiting for Judge Vaughn Walker to announce the date for closing arguments and we will have much work to do for that step in the journey as well. We ask for your continued support through both prayer and financial sacrifice during this time as we move closer toward the completion of the district court trial and then on to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

We will keep you informed as we learn more from Judge Walker.

God Bless you,

Ron Prentice, Executive Director

How homosexual “marriage” is intended to change traditional marriage

We heard consistently from our opponents during the Prop 8 campaign that “love is love” and that legalizing same-sex marriage would have no impact on traditional marriage. However, recent research reveals that most homosexual relationships do not share one of the most fundamental elements of marriage – a commitment to fidelity and monogamy. Paradoxically, according to a recent article in the New York Times, some “experts” are now advocating that traditional marriage must evolve to incorporate the values of homosexual marriage, “for the very survival of the institution.”

A study due out this month from San Francisco State University is, according to the Times article, set to reveal that monogamy is simply not a central feature of homosexual relationships. The study reportedly finds that most gays engage in an “open” relationship where sex outside the relationship is accepted as the norm. To illustrate the point the Times interviews two couples: one married lesbian couple spoke of how they have redefined their marriage to include “play” with other women, and a married male couple spoke of “transparency” rules they follow as part of having sex with other men.

According to the Times article, “none of this is new to the gay community, but few will speak publicly about it…They also worried that discussing the subject could undermine the legal fight for same-sex marriage.” The Times acknowledged that opponents of same-sex marriage have argued that legalizing same-sex “marriage” is an effort to rewrite societal norms. And in a rare example of journalistic honesty, the paper went on to say, “Quietly, outside of the news media and courtroom spotlight, many gay couples are doing just that, according to groundbreaking new research.”

One so-called expert who believes that sex outside marriage makes relationships stronger told the Times that homosexual couples bring a “fresh perspective” to matrimony. The Times noted that these relationships “defy the traditional definition of marriage” yet presented the view of “experts” who say “boundary changing gay relationships represent an evolution in marriage – one that might point the way for the survival of the institution.” Indeed, Joe Quirk, author of the best-selling book “It’s Not You, It’s Biology,” said, “If innovation is going to occur, it will be spearheaded by homosexual marriages.”

Not once during the many testimonies by plaintiffs’ “experts” in the Perry v Schwarzenegger case did a single person proactively make the case that marriage should be redefined to eliminate sexual exclusiveness and fidelity in order to accommodate homosexual promiscuity. Instead, they argued that same-sex marriage would have no impact on society’s definition of marriage.

But this New York Times article, and the coming study, make it crystal clear that changing society’s understanding of marriage to downplay (if not eliminate) the notion of fidelity as a central element is exactly what many gay leaders have in mind.

I don’t have enough space to discuss all the possible ramifications of eliminating fidelity as a societal norm of marriage. The implications for family stability for children, as adults hop from married partner to play partners, and then back again, are staggering. What is important, however, from the perspective of upholding Proposition 8 is that the people, not the courts, have the constitutional right to decide the meaning of marriage, and whether or not to change it. By passing Prop 8 the voters made a perfectly reasonable and rational choice to restore the traditional definition of marriage in California as it has been understood since the beginning of statehood.

As we continue to fight to uphold Prop 8 and traditional marriage, we ask for your support. Our attorneys are working hard to prepare our final legal briefs and closing arguments. We’ve exhausted our available financial resources and we are counting on you and other supporters to make a contribution to sustain our efforts.

Thank you for your support.

Sincerely,

Ron Prentice, Executive Director

www.protectmarriage.com