‘Grandad’s Pride’. Really?

I often read these threads but don’t contribute due to the arguments that inevitably ensue. I was pleasantly reassured by the first two pages of reasonable discussions but as always things have changed. The ‘offensive’ image does not appear in the uk version of the book - in fact it’s mostly pictures of an archetypal grandad with a jumper and trousers. It’s about love and acceptance, which I certainly want to pass onto my grandchildren. I really don’t understand why people are so filled with vitriol. What does this book and its sentiments take away from me? Nothing. I agree that children should not be sexualised but this isn’t about sex. It could have been a book about a grandad being married to a Caribbean woman and the Notting Hill carnival. Would anyone moan about this? I don’t want to pass on hate to the young people in my family. I want them to live in a world that accepts who they are. Why would anyone want to do otherwise? Imagine how a child would feel if they had same sex parents and read this thread? I used the word ‘woke’ in a slightly derogative way in front of my daughter and she replied ‘by woke I assume you mean people who care about others and want all in society to be treated equally and with dignity’. I have never forgotten this and I stood corrected. And sexuality is not how you feel about others, animal or otherwise, it’s about how you view yourself. Expressing your sexuality could be as simple as wearing lipstick or as complex as changing you gender or expressing love for someone of the same sex.

Callistemon21

paddyann54

its about diversity and acceptance ...its NOT about Sex or fetishes.
sometimes I wonder if we live on the same planet...so many on here cant seem to understand the simplest things ,they ALWAYS spin it to be something deviant.What kind of minds do you have?

That is a sexualised image with fetishm, paddyann.

If that was a heterosexual couple in the picture being shown to infant children, I'd still think it was wrong.

they ALWAYS spin it to be something deviant.What kind of minds do you have?

It's not our minds. It is overt sexualised fetishm, plain to see.
What is in the mind of the author is the question?
Or any teacher or TA who may think this is appropriate material to be read and shown to small children?

paddyann54

its about diversity and acceptance ...its NOT about Sex or fetishes.
sometimes I wonder if we live on the same planet...so many on here cant seem to understand the simplest things ,they ALWAYS spin it to be something deviant.What kind of minds do you have?

That is a sexualised image with fetishm, paddyann.

If that was a heterosexual couple in the picture being shown to infant children, I'd still think it was wrong.

Well said Bodach

Bodach 👏👏👏

I think it's concerning that this author only has dozens of plaudits, all exactly the same, if his name is Googled. It's an insidious way of sexualising infant children.

Straight grandparents are not sexualised, so why make sexual preferences the defining characteristic of gay ones? Men in fetish clothing is not, IMO an appropriate way to introduce young children to what it means to be a gay man, and I share concerns that normalising sexualised dress and behaviour could be a step on the way to grooming, whatever the intentions of the publishers may have been.

I'm sure we all know gay people; have friends, neighbours, relatives who are gay, married couples and single people.
We know a gay Dad and Grandad, he's just another friend who dresses like any other person (very conventional in fact) when he's out.

Not a single one of those I know dresses like that; they dress like the rest of us, behave like the rest of us, chat about the same things, they are not a different species!
What they wear or do in the privacy of their homes is their business, just as ours is.

Well said, Bodach.

VioletSky

Sexuality is who you love, it has nothing to do with sex, the act

What? Quite apart from the who/whom matter, that statement seems completely wrong to me. Surely sexuality is everything to do with "sex, the act"? At the very least, the inclination/desire to have sexual relations with someone else arises from one's inherent sexuality, and not from love. In some cases sexuality and love are enmeshed - in one's feelings for one's husband/wife/partner, for example. In others they are entirely separate: I love my children and grandchildren, but there is nothing remotely sexual about that love. On the other hand, since my (long ago) puberty, I have been intensely sexually attracted to countless members of the opposite sex - often in passing, and without love coming anywhere into the equation. If sexuality is solely about whom you love, what does that say about the heartfelt love I have had for every dog I have owned over the years?
And, by the way, (having viewed the video reading) I think the book is an appallingly woke, virtue-signalling, fetish-indulging, propagandist load of saccharine tripe.
Nil carborundum, Urmstungran..

I see nothing wrong with having books featuring gay grandparents. There will be some children for whom that is family life, and it won’t harm others to be aware of families who operate differently from their own. My children grew up in a very ‘white’, middle class area, and I went out of my way to make them aware that other norms existed.

There was a book catalogue that specialised in stories featuring characters who were slightly different in various ways- a disabled mum, or a SAH dad - that sort of thing, and this was 30 years ago. The difference seems to be in the illustrations here, however, which I don’t think are suitable for young children or representative of older gay people.

The whole point of the books I used to get was that the ‘difference’ was not gratuitous - the people just were who they were. Caricatures are very unhelpful when teaching acceptance IMO.

Straight grandparents are not sexualised, so why make sexual preferences the defining characteristic of gay ones? Men in fetish clothing is not, IMO an appropriate way to introduce young children to what it means to be a gay man, and I share concerns that normalising sexualised dress and behaviour could be a step on the way to grooming, whatever the intentions of the publishers may have been.

Doesn't really matter if you take them or not, unless you are going to lock children away somewhere and prevent them from seeing a TV, they are at some point going to see a Pride event. How much easier to explain it if all you have to do is say"It's like that story we read,". Then you can pass over the people you think are "pretty disgusting" with "It's just another way of dressing up". Of course you could refuse to talk about it and be very dismissive, but children do tend to be more interested in things they think adults are keeping secret. I suppose it's up to you.

VioletSky

What is wrong with taking them to pride?

Why would anyone other than some gay or trans people want to go to anything to do with Pride? A misnomer if ever I heard one in any case.
A lot of gay people won’t go to anything like that so why would heterosexual people go?
Men in skimpy black leather outfits, spiky dog collars and chains featured in one Pride gathering in my area last year.
Happily it didn’t go ahead this year.
The whole shebang has been taken over by deviant dressing and is to my mind pretty disgusting and not an event to take children to.

There is enough time in life for little children to learn about diversity. Let them be what they are innocent little children they will grow up soon enough to know it all.

paddyann54

its about diversity and acceptance ...its NOT about Sex or fetishes.
sometimes I wonder if we live on the same planet...so many on here cant seem to understand the simplest things ,they ALWAYS spin it to be something deviant.What kind of minds do you have?

This seems quite a sexual image to me -

paddyann54 I think most on here and elsewhere understand full well that acceptance of diversity can be taught to 4 year olds in the simplest of manners, by ordinary everday actions, by being kind etc.

its about diversity and acceptance ...its NOT about Sex or fetishes.
sometimes I wonder if we live on the same planet...so many on here cant seem to understand the simplest things ,they ALWAYS spin it to be something deviant.What kind of minds do you have?

I went out to dinner with a Headmaster of a fairly prestigious prep school last night and asked him about all this kind of stuff. His honest answer was, that his school, like most others, just tip toes around the subject and has as little to do with it as possible.
This year's latest brainwave is about teaching children how to improve their economic wealth to society! Yes, silly is the word I'd use for ALL these nonsense ideas.

Well, this thread has certainly become a joy of disinformation and rudeness the last page or so

The facts are still in it and on the first couple of pages so hopefully people won't read the shenanigans

Foxygloves

VioletSky

It's not teaching, it's a social story

Literally every children's book is

This thread gets sillier by the moment .

Are you surprised, Foxygloves?
😁

Autocorrect is in overdrive.

VioletSky

It's not teaching, it's a social story

Literally every children's book is

This thread gets sillier by the moment .

Sorry! Sp.
Urmstongran

&Urmstngran&

Reviews on Amazon are about 50/50 for and against this book, bearing in mind that many people are paid to put on glowing reviews of books and products.
The author has nothing but wonderful, complimentary reviews at a quick look on Google, which is odd almost authors have those who love or dislike their works.
Here's one review, I hope it's ok to show it here:

It has a man in leather fetish and a woman who has had her breasts cut off. Pride is not about kink and fetish, nor is it about promoting gender identity ideology that tells children they can be the opposite sex. Most children who question their sex turn out to be gay and if left alone will find their identity and be comfortable with their sexual orientation. This book promotes homophobia by telling gay kids they can't be gay but need to convert to trans. This book is anti pride

Except those aren't in the book

I don't know what harm could be caused by it Really?

Bondage?
Sexually suggestive pictures?

That really is worrying coming from an educator.

It's not teaching, it's a social story

Literally every children's book is

It should be something which is not particularly taught at 4 but, if the subject arises, dealt with in a practical and kind way.

Why should it be a subject which requires teaching to infants?
The will accept same-sex families as just another family if a big deal is not made out of it.