No hugs allowed at Ill. middle school

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
Karrie, may I have a hug please?
(((Huuuugggzzzzz)))
 

Brat

Electoral Member
May 30, 2007
483
27
18
It's unfortunate. Some kids could really use a hug on occassion.
I worked for a school board several years ago, and even then, we weren't allowed to hug the students. It was for our own protection as well as theirs. No hugs, means no one can claim that they were touched inappropriately.
 

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
So, has anyone kept score?

No hugs.
No midriff baring shirts.
No shirts with certain bands/logos/
No miniskirts.
No religious symbols.
No hats.

Looks like: schools 6, children's freedom of expression 0.
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
So, has anyone kept score?

No hugs.
No midriff baring shirts.
No shirts with certain bands/logos/
No miniskirts.
No religious symbols.
No hats.

Looks like: schools 6, children's freedom of expression 0.

add no music to that I believe.
 

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
How are kids supposed to express themselves exactly? By choosing essay theme 2 over 1 and 3? Oversimplified attack, I know, but still. Oh yeah, didn't some schools ban baggy pants too?
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
Herm...good to see yer thinkin...:)

Our societies have been manipulated into wars over oil. If our economies weren't based on the intersts of a handful of multi-trillion, multi-national conglomerates that generate the atmospheric gases that will kill everything on this planet....

If the "economy" of a teachers time....if the efficiency of building and plant use.....are measured in moments lost to something like giving someone a hug....for pretense or otherwise....doesn't this notion of "freedom" we're all being told is so important that our young folk have to die in Afghanistan and hundreds and perhaps millions of people suffer to satisfy the appetites of the western consumer cultures....really mean.....

Freedom to see the world not as a place where living beings rely on the whole of everything to exist, but where a few who regard the world as a resource awaiting their development...bounded by the metrics of personal wealth and power....as opposed to the kind of "freedom" they're talking about behind police cordons and barbwire topped chainlink fences at global/international economic gatherings conferences and summits?

Have a hug and get a hug because you've already lost some of the most precious freedoms any human being of any time throughout the human sojourn could possibly imagine.

Yeah,being led around by the headline....why not...
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
Not to mention even their lunches are under scrutiny.

My kids came home the other day with their ginger candies still in their lunch kits. Why? Because they're not supposed to have candy at school. Mind you, if I were to buy them milk tickets, they could have had chocolate milk instead. But no... must keep them away from those evil ginger candies a kid couldn't possibly eat more than one or two of a day, and get them guzzling chocolate milk at every meal. GGgggrrrr. I've had the same thing happen with teachers criticizing me for sending cookies for snack (home-made, applesauce instead of butter, cookies). While the other kids chow down on lunchables or granola bars, I get bitched out because my kid's snack fits the 'cookie criteria'.
 

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
Now I guess we're at 9-0. We used to make dehydrated fruit, my aunt especially made this dehydrated fruit roll up. It was all fruit, I imagine something like that would be a no-no too. Maybe its just me, I envisioned school as an institution of learning as opposed to indoctrination. Being taught about good eating habits is one thing, enforcing them... =\

They do elude to the "inappropriate" behavior that could come from hugging. Being "too close". I wonder how much of this is just prudishness?
 

karrie

OogedyBoogedy
Jan 6, 2007
27,780
285
83
bliss
They do elude to the "inappropriate" behavior that could come from hugging. Being "too close". I wonder how much of this is just prudishness?

Like I said... it doesn't really matter. There are rules about respecting personal space, and about inappropriate contact. The prudish rules already exist, so why not use THOSE rather than writing a whole new set because you don't want to have to actually find ways to enforce the old ones?

If I have a rule in my house banning drinks in the basement, am I then going to ban all liquid from my house because my kids won't follow that rule and keep dragging water glasses down with them? It would be a simple solution. It would just be dumb and lazy and ill thought out... like this one.
 

MikeyDB

House Member
Jun 9, 2006
4,612
63
48
You have to establish distance between people to permit re-working them into what you want them to be...to become...

If you feel another human being's arms around you and a moment of love and compassion or even simply camraderie were permitted to exist...well you'd have to recognize others as real human beings too....

Not something an accountant or statistician for the "machine" thinks appropriate in the larger picture...
 

Niflmir

A modern nomad
Dec 18, 2006
3,460
58
48
Leiden, the Netherlands
You have to establish distance between people to permit re-working them into what you want them to be...to become...

If you feel another human being's arms around you and a moment of love and compassion or even simply camraderie were permitted to exist...well you'd have to recognize others as real human beings too....

Not something an accountant or statistician for the "machine" thinks appropriate in the larger picture...

Ah, the ever present objectification of others. Did I ever post my "Feminists don't flip the bird" thesis here? About how getting angry at other drivers is because of our objectification of them?
 

shadowshiv

Dark Overlord
May 29, 2007
17,545
120
63
52
Not to mention even their lunches are under scrutiny.

My kids came home the other day with their ginger candies still in their lunch kits. Why? Because they're not supposed to have candy at school. Mind you, if I were to buy them milk tickets, they could have had chocolate milk instead. But no... must keep them away from those evil ginger candies a kid couldn't possibly eat more than one or two of a day, and get them guzzling chocolate milk at every meal. GGgggrrrr. I've had the same thing happen with teachers criticizing me for sending cookies for snack (home-made, applesauce instead of butter, cookies). While the other kids chow down on lunchables or granola bars, I get bitched out because my kid's snack fits the 'cookie criteria'.

That is absolute bullsh*t. What gives them the right to say what you can send your child in their lunch? If they want to create healthy choices in their cafeteria menus, fine. However, don't say what they can and can't eat(allergies notwithstanding...this is just them going way overboard on the "gotta have kids eating healthy"). Can you tell this irks me?
 

Vereya

Council Member
Apr 20, 2006
2,003
54
48
Tula
Not to mention even their lunches are under scrutiny.

My kids came home the other day with their ginger candies still in their lunch kits. Why? Because they're not supposed to have candy at school. Mind you, if I were to buy them milk tickets, they could have had chocolate milk instead. But no... must keep them away from those evil ginger candies a kid couldn't possibly eat more than one or two of a day, and get them guzzling chocolate milk at every meal. GGgggrrrr. I've had the same thing happen with teachers criticizing me for sending cookies for snack (home-made, applesauce instead of butter, cookies). While the other kids chow down on lunchables or granola bars, I get bitched out because my kid's snack fits the 'cookie criteria'.

Now that is way too weird for me to understand. It's up to the parents to decide what their kids are eating, right? We've got nothing of this kind in our schools here...
 

Zzarchov

House Member
Aug 28, 2006
4,600
100
63
That is absolute bullsh*t. What gives them the right to say what you can send your child in their lunch? If they want to create healthy choices in their cafeteria menus, fine. However, don't say what they can and can't eat(allergies notwithstanding...this is just them going way overboard on the "gotta have kids eating healthy"). Can you tell this irks me?

How about that the teachers are responsible for your kids while you dump them off at "government daycare".

Those teachers/babysitters have to deal with your snot nosed kid when its hopped up on sugar and hitting other kids (who the teacher is also liable for).


BUT WAIT! THERE IS A SOLUTION!

With the Miracle of schooling your own kid through "Home schooling" you can teach your kid whatever you want and not deal with the snot nosed rules of some teacher.
 
Last edited: