Jumping The Shark In Children’s Television

Yesterday, WCYB Channel 5 reported that the writers of the children’s show “Arthur” have decided that this season Arthur is going to a wedding of his teacher Mr. Ratburn where Mr. Ratburn marries another man.

The article reports:

Following the scene that shows the teacher and his husband Patrick walking down the aisle, Arthur is shown at the reception saying he cannot believe that Mr. Ratburn is married.

“Yep. It’s a brand new world,” says Arthur’s friend Francine in the episode entitled “Mr. Ratburn and the Special Someone” which can be seen by clicking here.

The article continues:

The Public Broadcasting System issued a statement on the episode on Monday to the publication People:

PBS KIDS programs are designed to reflect the diversity of communities across the nation. We believe it is important to represent the wide array of adults in the lives of children who look to PBS KIDS every day

Why is PBS doing this? Parents will introduce their children to diversity when they feel the children are ready for it. Children do not need to be indoctrinated by Public Television. Keep in mind that our taxpayer dollars are paying for this garbage. Children should be taught respect and tolerance, but it is up to their parents to teach them the values the parents espouse. I would never want a child to be disrespectful of a person because they were gay, but I would also want my child to understand the Biblical view of homosexuality, despite the fact that it is in opposition to the current liberal view.

Giving Our Children Information They Don’t Need While Not Telling Them What They Need To Know

Camille Paglia posted an article at Time Magazine yesterday entitled, “Put the Sex Back in Sex Ed.” It’s a rather odd concept, but she makes some very worthwhile points.

The article states:

Fertility is the missing chapter in sex education. Sobering facts about women’s declining fertility after their 20s are being withheld from ambitious young women, who are propelled along a career track devised for men.

The refusal by public schools’ sex-education programs to acknowledge gender differences is betraying both boys and girls. The genders should be separated for sex counseling. It is absurd to avoid the harsh reality that boys have less to lose from casual serial sex than do girls, who risk pregnancy and whose future fertility can be compromised by disease. Boys need lessons in basic ethics and moral reasoning about sex (for example, not taking advantage of intoxicated dates), while girls must learn to distinguish sexual compliance from popularity.

The first paragraph is something that was not an issue thirty years ago, the second paragraph involves issues that parents used to handle thirty years ago. Ms. Paglia is looking for a scientific approach to sex education in biology classes and a practical non-agenda driven approach to life issues in single-sex classes. This makes sense. Many parents are not telling their children the truth about the emotional and physical cost of abortion or the emotional differences between men and women.

Please follow the link and read the entire article. This is a very common-sense approach to an issue that has our society needs to deal with in a way that helps our young people grow up to be healthy and productive adults.

Enhanced by Zemanta