Mary says YES!

Kiwi in IE · 16-10-2015 6:56pm #1

http://www.teachdontpreach.ie/2015/10/mary-says-yes/

What do you think of this A&A?

Well done to the authors of 'Grow in Love'. The more ridiculous and inappropriate they are, the sooner the RCC will be kicked out of schools hopefully.

In all seriousness this is slightly shocking don't you think?

lazygal · 16-10-2015 7:42pm

It pretty much makes children feel that saying yes to anyone in power regardless of their feelings of doubt or fear is what God wants. Very very creepy and I'm wondering how many parents will reassess whether their children should be indoctrinated.

eviltwin · 16-10-2015 11:24pm

Saw this on FB today, was shocked and disgusted that someone signed off on this. I work in the area of child protection and we're trying to get the message of bodily integrity and the right to say no to kids and then a flippin school book comes out with this message?? Unbelievable....

volchitsa · 16-10-2015 11:35pm

That is actually quite sinister, kiwi.

Even assuming they just didn't themselves grasp the unsafe message they are now actively teaching to children, one has to wonder not only how they could be so tone deaf, but whether it's safe to have people who have so little understanding of child safety involved in children's education at all.

Mary looks like a little girl in the picture that is to be displayed in all classrooms. When Mary says ‘YES’!, she is sitting on her bed looking startled, it is nighttime, and there is a little kitten with a heart on it beside her on the floor.

This is an extraordinary and dangerous message to give to young children. ‘SAY YES’!, even if you are afraid and confused. Just trust someone that comes to your bed in the night.

Of all organisations, the Catholic Church should know that we have higher standards of child protection today than were common when this myth was first invented two thousand years ago, at a time when Jewish girls were typically betrothed for marriage at about twelve years of age.

The ‘Grow in Love’ religion course is based on the Catholic Preschool and Primary Religious Education Curriculum. The Catholic Church sought and received approval from the Holy See for its use in publicly funded Irish National Schools.

eviltwin · 16-10-2015 11:40pm

lazygal wrote: »

It pretty much makes children feel that saying yes to anyone in power regardless of their feelings of doubt or fear is what God wants. Very very creepy and I'm wondering how many parents will reassess whether their children should be indoctrinated.

Unfortunately I don't think many parents even care.....

frostyjacks · 16-10-2015 11:53pm

It's a little creepy that people would draw those sort of connotations from a children's textbook. Can't they find something else to complain about?

Zamboni · 17-10-2015 12:18am

frostyjacks wrote: »

It's a little creepy that people would draw those sort of connotations from a children's textbook. Can't they find something else to complain about?

What's a lot creepy is that the "Holy Sea" can authorise the use of Grow in Love in Irish schools, published by Veritas, owned by the Irish Catholic Bishops Conference using money taken from my payslip by the state in a Republic.

volchitsa · 17-10-2015 12:25am

frostyjacks wrote: »

It's a little creepy that people would draw those sort of connotations from a children's textbook. Can't they find something else to complain about?

You really don't think there's a problem with teaching children that if somebody asks you to do something you feel unsure about, something that frightens you, you should say yes anyway?

I hope you aren't a parent!

frostyjacks · 17-10-2015 12:31am

Zamboni wrote: »

What's a lot creepy is that the "Holy Sea" can authorise the use of Grow in Love in Irish schools, published by Veritas, owned by the Irish Catholic Bishops Conference using money taken from my payslip by the state in a Republic.

And there's plenty of rational debate to be had on that topic. But drawing sexual innuendo from a children's textbook is below the belt. You may as well go through nursery rhymes and do the same thing.

gctest50 · 17-10-2015 12:33am

frostyjacks wrote: »

......... Can't they find something else to complain about?

yip .... time to get this sky-fairy stuff away from kids at school time for once n for all

ffs like, someone has an affair, gets pregnant, comes up with the dodgiest excuse ever and we're still hearing about it 2000 years later

Lithium93_ · 17-10-2015 12:44am

That is several kinds of weird on the Catholic Church's part, then again nothing new for the Catholic Church, and for starters why even teach that sort of stuff to 6 year olds is beyond me..

The Randy Riverbeast · 17-10-2015 1:05am

I dont think it helps when you consider the history of the organisation. Saying yes to a person in authority has led to a few issues in the past.

Second Toughest in_the Freshers · 17-10-2015 2:22am

and 'Grow in Love', if that's not some kind of euphemism...

Links234 · 17-10-2015 2:33am

I begin to wonder if there's any depth of depravity from the religious instutions that frostyjacks won't make excuses for?

One eyed Jack · 17-10-2015 6:40am

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

http://www.teachdontpreach.ie/2015/10/mary-says-yes/

What do you think of this A&A?

Well done to the authors of 'Grow in Love'. The more ridiculous and inappropriate they are, the sooner the RCC will be kicked out of schools hopefully.

In all seriousness this is slightly shocking don't you think?

The way that article is written is supposed to be shocking. The tone of the article suggests that strange men are going to come into little girls bedrooms at night and impregnate them, and of course these little girls must say "YES", enthusiastically suggesting that they as pre-pubescent children want to be raped and molested.

That says a hell of a lot more about the mind of that particular author of that story, and some of the minds of people here in A&A that they would interpret a story so literally, almost like a Creationist would. Bizarre sort of a comparison I grant you, but that's exactly what the hysterics are like.

Is it any wonder then there's an atmosphere of paranoia and 'stranger danger' among grown adults nowadays that have their children wrapped up in cotton wool, never let them sleep over in a friends house, never let them participate in extracurricular activities after school, and now they may have to withdraw their children from school altogether because they object to their children being exposed to stories about teenage pregnancy and imaginary child molesters.

Makes complete sense...

volchitsa · 17-10-2015 7:26am

There are two levels at which it's odd though : one is the literal meaning, the one frosty jacks is upset at posters pointing out, and which I'm not commenting on in this post, to avoid confusion.

The other, a far more pragmatic one, is simply the fact that the message sent to 6 year olds in the text directly contradicts that of campaigns by child protection groups to give children the confidence to say NO to would-be abusers and to grooming. Like this NSPCC campaign :

http://www.nspcc.org.uk/preventing-abuse/keeping-children-safe/underwear-rule/

So my question to frosty Jack and to anyone else who thinks it's unfair to object to this is this:
Even assuming this unfortunate subtext was written completely innocently, is that potentially confusing message of,"it's ok to say yes to an adult in authority even if what he's asking you to do is scary" there, yes or no?

If it is, then either it doesn't matter, and the NSPCC are wasting money on their campaign (have they done any research on how to protect children from abusers?) or it does matter, and "just say yes" is not a suitable message to be sending to children.

evolving_doors · 17-10-2015 7:39am

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The way that article is written is supposed to be shocking. The tone of the article suggests that strange men are going to come into little girls bedrooms at night and impregnate them, and of course these little girls must say "YES", enthusiastically suggesting that they as pre-pubescent children want to be raped and molested.

That says a hell of a lot more about the mind of that particular author of that story, and some of the minds of people here in A&A that they would interpret a story so literally, almost like a Creationist would. Bizarre sort of a comparison I grant you, but that's exactly what the hysterics are like.

Is it any wonder then there's an atmosphere of paranoia and 'stranger danger' among grown adults nowadays that have their children wrapped up in cotton wool, never let them sleep over in a friends house, never let them participate in extracurricular activities after school, and now they may have to withdraw their children from school altogether because they object to their children being exposed to stories about teenage pregnancy and imaginary child molesters.

Makes complete sense...

Leaving the artilce aside, (and going back to the lesson in the book). What do you think Mary was saying yes to in the middle of the night in her bedroom?

Ice cream?

I think opponents of the article are a little bit unaware of the fable themselves (ironically!). The story itself is that the angel Gabriel basically comes down and impregnates Mary (unbeknown to Joseph).

Or else maybe there's a simpler/cleaner version we weren't told in school, like surrogacy and an IV clinic or something.

If this is education, then what exactly is the message kids are supposed to take from this fable. Maybe OneeyedJack and FrostyJacks can tell us?
Some one mentioned that earlier "But drawing sexual innuendo from a children's textbook is below the belt."

There's nothing 'innuendo' about it, it's quite explicit. It's a about an 'angel' impregnating a woman to have another mans child.... and this is to kids who probably havn't even done the facts of life yet. I'd love to sit in on that lesson and see how a teacher delivers that 'education'.

One eyed Jack · 17-10-2015 7:59am

volchitsa wrote: »

There are two levels at which it's odd though : one is the literal meaning, the one frosty jacks is upset at posters pointing out, and which I'm not commenting on in this post, to avoid confusion.

The other, a far more pragmatic one, is simply the fact that the message sent to 6 year olds in the text directly contradicts that of campaigns by child protection groups to give children the confidence to say NO to would-be abusers and to grooming. Like this NSPCC campaign :

http://www.nspcc.org.uk/preventing-abuse/keeping-children-safe/underwear-rule/

So my question to frosty Jack and to anyone else who thinks it's unfair to object to this is this:
Even assuming this unfortunate subtext was written completely innocently, is that message potentially there, yes or no?

There are an infinite number of potential messages and interpretations there, but it would take Ionaist levels of "Hello Divorce, Bye bye Daddy"-ism, to interpret that story the way the author has done, and the author is an adult!

It's incredibly unlikely that a 6 year old would interpret that story in the same way an adult would. Unless of course you're willing to accept that children also believe that a wolf could blow their house down and come in and eat them, or that if an adult stranger doesn't come into their bedroom at night, the bogeyman will molest them on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays instead, on the Sandman's days off.

If you think the messages they get from two different sources are contradictory, then you must also fear for children when one parent tells them one thing, and another parent tells them something else. It must be incredibly frightening to turn on television and have children exposed to all those conflicting ideas, let alone the internet!

To bring it back to the classroom - last week there was a poster campaign intended to be distributed to primary schools, aimed at enabling teachers to teach about all sorts of families in the classroom, and in particular about those families whom are considered "non-traditional", be they one-parent families, blended families, same-sex.parent families... and David Quinn as usual lost his shìt and we all had a good giggle about it and the embarrassment he was making of himself.

The hysteria here in the article, and in this thread, surrounding this non-story, is no less embarrassing for those who are losing their shìt over something so mundane.

If it is, then either it doesn't matter, and the NSPCC are wasting money on their campaign (have they done any research on how to protect children from abusers?) or it does matter, and "just say yes" is not a suitable message to be sending to children.

The NSPCC have been throwing money down the drain for years and are less of a children's welfare organisation and more of a political lobby group nowadays, but that's probably beside the point.

The potential for any message is there (think how much innuendo was read into children's programmes in the 70's, do we suggest that's why there were so many children abused by celebrities?), but what you and other people here seem to be completely ignoring are the multitude of factors that offer context, and the message itself isn't as stupidly simplistic as "Just say yes", just like the "Just say no" message to children has been as equally ineffective when imparted to children in isolation and devoid of any context.

evolving_doors · 17-10-2015 8:04am

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There are an infinite number of potential messages and interpretations there, but it would take Ionaist levels of "Hello Divorce, Bye bye Daddy"-ism, to interpret that story the way the author has done, and the author is an adult!

It's incredibly unlikely that a 6 year old would interpret that story in the same way an adult would. Unless of course you're willing to accept that children also believe that a wolf could blow their house down and come in and eat them, or that if an adult stranger doesn't come into their bedroom at night, the bogeyman will molest them on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays instead, on the Sandman's days off.

If you think the messages they get from two different sources are contradictory, then you must also fear for children when one parent tells them one thing, and another parent tells them something else. It must be incredibly frightening to turn on television and have children exposed to all those conflicting ideas, let alone the internet!

To bring it back to the classroom - last week there was a poster campaign intended to be distributed to primary schools, aimed at enabling teachers to teach about all sorts of families in the classroom, and in particular about those families whom are considered "non-traditional", be they one-parent families, blended families, same-sex.parent families... and David Quinn as usual lost his shìt and we all had a good giggle about it and the embarrassment he was making of himself.

The hysteria here in the article, and in this thread, surrounding this non-story, is no less embarrassing for those who are losing their shìt over something so mundane.

The NSPCC have been throwing money down the drain for years and are less of a children's welfare organisation and more of a political lobby group nowadays, but that's probably beside the point.

The potential for any message is there (think how much innuendo was read into children's programmes in the 70's, do we suggest that's why there were so many children abused by celebrities?), but what you and other people here seem to be completely ignoring are the multitude of factors that offer context, and the message itself isn't as stupidly simplistic as "Just say yes", just like the "Just say no" message to children has been as equally ineffective.

So what exactly is the message of that story, what is Mary saying 'YES' to Oneeyedjack? Youve talked around everything else but the intended lesson itself.

The message from the 3 little pigs is simple, you build a good goddam house and prepare for the wolf in advance.

One eyed Jack · 17-10-2015 8:14am

Gebgbegb wrote: »

Leaving the artilce aside, (and going back to the lesson in the book). What do you think Mary was saying yes to in the middle of the night in her bedroom?

Ice cream?

I think opponents of the article are a little bit unaware of the fable themselves (ironically!). The story itself is that the angel Gabriel basically comes down and impregnates Mary (unbeknown to Joseph).

Or else maybe there's a simpler/cleaner version we weren't told in school, like surrogacy and an IV clinic or something.

If this is education, then what exactly is the message kids are supposed to take from this fable. Maybe OneeyedJack and FrostyJacks can tell us?
Some one mentioned that earlier "But drawing sexual innuendo from a children's textbook is below the belt."

There's nothing 'innuendo' about it, it's quite explicit. It's a about an 'angel' impregnating a woman to have another mans child.... and this is to kids who probably havn't even done the facts of life yet. I'd love to sit in on that lesson and see how a teacher delivers that 'education'.

I find it rather interesting that you would have all these fears for children who haven't done the facts of life yet and so on, yet if a child in primary school identified as transgender, you'd be among the first on social media to scream that children can be aware of their sexuality from as young as two years of age.

If you read that story as explicit, best keep your children protected from nursery rhymes like Jack and Jill and what they must have got up to when they went up the hill to fetch a pail of water. A likely story indeed... :rolleyes:

volchitsa · 17-10-2015 8:15am

One eyed Jack wrote: »

There are an infinite number of potential messages and interpretations there, but it would take Ionaist levels of "Hello Divorce, Bye bye Daddy"-ism, to interpret that story the way the author has done, and the author is an adult!

It's incredibly unlikely that a 6 year old would interpret that story in the same way an adult would. Unless of course you're willing to accept that children also believe that a wolf could blow their house down and come in and eat them, or that if an adult stranger doesn't come into their bedroom at night, the bogeyman will molest them on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Fridays instead, on the Sandman's days off.

If you think the messages they get from two different sources are contradictory, then you must also fear for children when one parent tells them one thing, and another parent tells them something else. It must be incredibly frightening to turn on television and have children exposed to all those conflicting ideas, let alone the internet!

To bring it back to the classroom - last week there was a poster campaign intended to be distributed to primary schools, aimed at enabling teachers to teach about all sorts of families in the classroom, and in particular about those families whom are considered "non-traditional", be they one-parent families, blended families, same-sex.parent families... and David Quinn as usual lost his shìt and we all had a good giggle about it and the embarrassment he was making of himself.

The hysteria here in the article, and in this thread, surrounding this non-story, is no less embarrassing for those who are losing their shìt over something so mundane.

The NSPCC have been throwing money down the drain for years and are less of a children's welfare organisation and more of a political lobby group nowadays, but that's probably beside the point.

The potential for any message is there (think how much innuendo was read into children's programmes in the 70's, do we suggest that's why there were so many children abused by celebrities?), but what you and other people here seem to be completely ignoring are the multitude of factors that offer context, and the message itself isn't as stupidly simplistic as "Just say yes", just like the "Just say no" message to children has been as equally ineffective when imparted to children in isolation and devoid of any context.

A very, very long (overly defensive? Certainly contradictory anyway) "explanation" there.

Yes, parents telling children different things is definitely known to be a source of confusion in terms of child rearing. That's accepted. It's why parents are advised if possible not to undermine the other parent in front of the children even when there is major conflict between them.

Secondly, in order to minimize the possible risks of this message you've had to write,off the NSPCC and equate official school teaching material with the Internet and celebrity TV shows.

Now maybe you really think your kids get as much learning from watching celebrity BB as from going to school. I don't, and nor do I think the lessons they learn there have the same value in their minds.

Or of course you could just be desperately scraping the barrel for anything to avoid acknowledging that this is a crazy and dangerous message to be sending to 6 year olds in the official learning zone that is their classroom.

volchitsa · 17-10-2015 8:19am

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I find it rather interesting that you would have all these fears for children who haven't done the facts of life yet and so on, yet if a child in primary school identified as transgender, you'd be among the first on social media to scream that children can be aware of their sexuality from as young as two years of age.

If you read that story as explicit, best keep your children protected from nursery rhymes like Jack and Jill and what they must have got up to when they went up the hill to fetch a pail of water. A likely story indeed... :rolleyes:

The difference with Jack and Jill is that the moral of the story does not lead explicitly to Jill giving birth, and nor is it an explanation of how Jill came to be pregnant in the first place.

Is it?

Whereas the Angel Gabriel....

Cabaal · 17-10-2015 8:23am

frostyjacks wrote: »

It's a little creepy that people would draw those sort of connotations from a children's textbook. Can't they find something else to complain about?

It's not creepy, it's merely looking at the "facts" of the situation.

Mary if she did exist was 12 years of age, as was the custom at the time. In this book she is drawn as a child.

Pregnancy biological requires sex and this book suggests that to be made pregnant even when confused, scared etc you should say yes even when approached by an unknown person/thing.

A extremely confusing and idiotic message to send to small children, it's completely opposite to the message sent at preschool level!

One eyed Jack · 17-10-2015 8:24am

Gebgbegb wrote: »

So what exactly is the message of that story, what is Mary saying 'YES' to Oneeyedjack? Youve talked around everything else but the intended lesson itself.

The message from the 3 little pigs is simple, you build a good goddam house and prepare for the wolf in advance.

Well if you're going to be that ridiculous about it, I'd say the message could easily be to children to make sure whoever rapes them wears condoms, sheepskin condoms, may help prevent teenage pregnancies where they're impregnated and they can say a ghost did it.

The message from the three little pigs story I always took it to mean that bacon is delicious, in many and all it's forms, certainly tastier than christ crackers!

amdublin · 17-10-2015 8:26am

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The NSPCC have been throwing money down the drain for years and are less of a children's welfare organisation and more of a political lobby group nowadays, but that's probably beside the point.

The potential for any message is there (think how much innuendo was read into children's programmes in the 70's, do we suggest that's why there were so many children abused by celebrities?), but what you and other people here seem to be completely ignoring are the multitude of factors that offer context, and the message itself isn't as stupidly simplistic as "Just say yes", just like the "Just say no" message to children has been as equally ineffective when imparted to children in isolation and devoid of any context.

I am not aware of a "just say no" campaign in relation to children. I thought the "just say no" campaign was against drugs in the 80's

You mention isolation and context:
What am I aware of a is stay safe program where amongst other things it is taught to a child that if you have a bad feeling you need to tell a trusted adult plus it is ok to say no. This seems at odds with what is being in Mary's story.

Ps. Just to get things straight. Is it really being taught in schools that the angel Gabriel IMPREGNATES Mary?? From my school days I just remember the angel Gabriel coming to Mary and TELLING her she was going to have a baby. "Don't be afraid you are going to have baby"

Avatar MIA · 17-10-2015 8:28am

Some people will defend anything.

Brainwashed much?

Somehow I don't think this will make it to the schools (cue someone telling me it already is :pac: )

looksee · 17-10-2015 8:36am

If the story had been left as the vague, miraculous, inexplicable happening between an adult and a god that has always been taught it would simply go over the children's heads to be filed in the general 'stuff' sections of their brains and forgotten about except when asked for.

The authors of the the book have deliberately provided the setting of a bedroom and introduced a nervous child.

Then 'Mary says yes' - yes to what? The bible has an angel telling a woman that this is how it is going to be, and the woman accepts something that is inevitable. Anyone who has been pregnant will understand that overwhelming sense of inevitability.

This book has the child saying yes to a proposed sexual encounter - or more to the point, saying yes to something that she is worried about and that takes place in the environment of her bedroom. If this stuff must be taught to children, the sanitised fantasy version in the bible would be more appropriate than offering an adult the excuse and argument of this book's lesson to assault a child. Whole conspiracy theories have been spun out of weaker bases.

I do not usually subscribe to alarmist 'pc' notions, but in this case I think it is creepy and inappropriate. The thinking behind this and the fact that it has been 'approved' by a group who you would hope would have more awareness of child protection, given their reputation, is disturbing.

The whole business of having our children's education dictated by a foreign power is a whole other discussion, but one that maybe it is time we had.

One eyed Jack · 17-10-2015 8:43am

volchitsa wrote: »

A very, very long (overly defensive? Certainly contradictory anyway) "explanation" there.

Yes, parents telling children different things is definitely known to be a source of confusion in terms of child rearing. That's accepted. It's why parents are advised if possible not to undermine the other parent in front of the children even when there is major conflict between them.

Secondly, in order to minimize the possible risks of this message you've had to write,off the NSPCC and equate official school teaching material with the Internet and celebrity TV shows.

Now maybe you really think your kids get as much learning from watching celebrity BB as from going to school. I don't, and nor do I think the lessons they learn there have the same value in their minds.

Or of course you could just be desperately scraping the barrel for anything to avoid acknowledging that this is a crazy and dangerous message to be sending to 6 year olds in the official learning zone that is their classroom.

I'll keep it a bit shorter this time and say no, this isn't a defence of anything, it's pointing out the ridiculous hysterics that some people nowadays will highlight as objectionable, offensive, etc.

No, I don't think it's any more a crazy and dangerous message than allowing six year old children to believe that the world revolves around them.

As far as desperate barrel scraping goes, may want to check with the author of the article for that, they even go so far as to suggest the cartoon drawings are objectionable... kinda reminds me of another fundamentalist group that have issues with cartoon drawings :rolleyes:

Avatar MIA · 17-10-2015 8:50am

Strawman 1

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No, I don't think it's any more a crazy and dangerous message than allowing six year old children to believe that the world revolves around them.

Strawman 2

One eyed Jack wrote: »

kinda reminds me of another fundamentalist group that have issues with cartoon drawings

Lets start with the basics, because one can never be too sure.

Do you believe that many children were abused by adults, including some abuse being carried out by people in authority?

Cabaal · 17-10-2015 8:58am

One eyed Jack wrote: »

just like the "Just say no" message to children has been as equally ineffective when imparted to children in isolation and devoid of any context.

Just say no campaign had NOTHING to do with sex abuse, it was a US anti drug campaign - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just_Say_No
This suggests you haven't a clue what you are on about.

There is a underwear campaign alright, only part of which is "no means no" - http://www.nspcc.org.uk/preventing-abuse/keeping-children-safe/underwear-rule/

The message of mary saying yes is the completely opposite to the PANTS campaign after all it ignores "Always remember your body belongs to you"

Let your child know their body belongs to them, and no one else.

No one has the right to make them do anything that makes them feel uncomfortable. And if anyone tries, tell your child they have the right to say no.

Remind your child that they can always talk to you about anything which worries or upsets them.

Having a scared and confused Mary in relation to her body is deeply, deeply worrying.

One eyed Jack · 17-10-2015 9:11am

Avatar MIA wrote: »

Lets start with the basics, because one can never be too sure.

Do you believe that many children were abused by adults, including some abuse being carried out by people in authority?

I get that you can never be too sure and all, but we can go a little above the basics if you want, I'm not going to be an arse-hole if I believe you have a genuine question and a genuine reason for asking, rather than a lot of the piss ripping of people who are religious that goes on around here a lot of the time.

Anyhow, to answer your question, yes, I do believe that many children were abused by adults, and I hope you don't interpret it as a strawman, but rather an expansion on my answer - I still believe that children are abused today by adults and particularly adults in positions of authority, in spite of numerous public information campaigns and media scaremongering and all the rest of it.

Mary says YES!

Comments