bullets13

  now this is ridiculous.  what agenda?  she worked a job, and did it well.  the agenda was pushed by those who were uncomfortable with her.  i understand why they were uncomfortable, although i strongly disagree.  but don't go placing blame on her for simply working a job and making a paycheck. 

i think we should adopt liberal progressive ways of doing things on CERTAIN issues because it's the right thing to do... and from what i've seen and heard myself, there were PLENTY of people supporting Ms. Klug at the meeting.  as for me being "normal folks", i'm plenty normal, at least in my age-group. 

you're entering a gray area on the legality of dress code.  of more concern would be restrooming, but every school lounge i've ever been to had a uni-sex one seater, so that wouldn't be a problem.    and i agree to an extent with a parent having a say in what their child is exposed to... but where do you draw the line?  is Ms. Klug the line?  by all accounts she's pleasant, and she does her job, which she is vastly OVERqualified to do.  she doesn't talk about her sexuality, she dresses in extremely conservative female dress, and has substituted on other occasions for LISD without incident. if we're honest, a few parents in Lumberton would be unhappy if an African American substitute taught their kids (Calm down LRF, i'm not saying that everyone in Lumberton is a racist).  Would it be okay for them to raise an issue then?  would we not take offense to their protest?  It's a tough issue, because you have to balance Ms. Klug's right to work a job that she does more than capably, versus a few parents' right (not sure if it is) to not be uncomfortable.  I would think that there's no law saying that Lumberton parents can't take their kids out of LISD and put them into a private school, so i guess parents do have that right to pick what their kids are exposed to..   also, as an aside, i do agree that it would've been good to let parents know ahead of time so they could address it with their children, although it seems like the kids weren't exactly running home upset about it, conflicted and confused, or we would've heard about it after some of Ms. Klug's previous substitute jobs in the district.

  you have to realize you're not "normal folks" anymore.  you're still thinking SETX is the normal way of things.  it's not.  i saw the news, and saw a couple of people for and a couple of people against.  i've also seen a lot of feedback on social media.  were you at the meeting?

  i think this whole situation goes to show that "radical" is constantly shifting and changing from generation to generation.  support of Ms. Klug was widespread, even from areas that you and I both would not have expected.  (Yes i understand there were dissenters as well)  50-60 years ago blatantly discriminating against someone because of the color of their skin would not have been radical at all, and in fact what was radical was wanting equal rights for African Americans.  Southeast Texas was one of the last areas to get past that.  Now here we are, and it would appear that wanting rights for someone like Ms. Klug, who even a decade ago might have been completely run out of town, is no longer a radical position to take, even in backwoods Southeast Texas. 

LISD might not have wanted to do this, but this is the right thing to do.  this wasn't an issue until a couple of students  PARENTS OF STUDENTS were "distracted" by this teacher.  this was never an issue for the kids, it's a parent issue.  and while i can understand why someone might be uncomfortable, especially when they were raised to be uncomfortable with this issue, as Southeast Texans so often are, the fact of the matter is that times are changing.  which is why Ms. Klug garnered a tremendous amount of local support in what is a traditionally very conservative area.    All that being said, Lumberton probably wasn't quite ready for this, even in 2014.  But by going to the media instead of quietly talking to the school board and superintendent, the uncomfortable parents of the "distracted" students ensured with all of the attention they brought to the matter that Lumberton would have to retain her in order to A) avoid a massive lawsuit, and B) not incur the wrath of a great many people, including a surprisingly large number of Lumberton residents.  Had this been approached differently, then Klug would have likely just quietly stopped receiving sub jobs and nobody would've ever known the difference. 

have you seen pictures of the guy/girl?  she really looks quite ordinary.  i'd be pretty distracted if she came in dressed up like a drag queen, but from what i've seen in the media, i just don't see much there that is going to get the kids wound up.  as for distractions, i know a teacher that weighs nearly 600 lbs.  Should he be put before the board because he's a distraction?  should good looking female teachers be put before the board because they're distractions?  i remember in 5th or 6th grade we had a young, attractive teacher who wore tight, form hugging shirts, and it was generally quite obvious when it was cold in the room.  she was dressed nice, she didn't show a bunch of cleavage or anything like that, but on most days most of the boys had their attention glued to the teacher, but i don't believe many of us heard what she was saying.  all that to say, apart from maybe a temporary distraction, i'm having a hard time buying the argument, and it's even harder in light of the fact that this sub had apparently subbed there multiple times before without significant enough of a distraction for it to be brought up.

  yeah steve.  and they ought to tax the top 1% to fund it. 

that was the guy who brought it up and was interviewed for kbmt and kfdm's main argument.  was not directing that at you in particular...

and a natural, healthy, CONSTANT distraction for young men.  the main difference i see is that these kids go in, see this guy dressed as a lady (think Ms. Doubtfire, not Ru Paul), and MAYBE it distracts them for a few minutes, and then likely only for the first time she subs for them. on the flipside, they go in and sit next to a girl they think is pretty, and not only will it distract them all class, it will distract them all YEAR.  my point being i respect a Biblical argument in this situation much more than i do a "distraction" argument, as the distraction argument is really just a copout made by those who don't have the backbone to admit why they really have a problem with it. if this were truly such a distraction, than this issue would've come up during one of the previous times that she subbed in the district.  and if we're truly so worried about distractions, then all schools should be divided into boys and girls so that they'll concentrate on learning.  

i know.  young women are a much bigger distraction. 

the only types of fields that i would think women might not be as capable as men would be fields where physical size or strength would provide a distinct advantage.

the only thing this will do is make sure that someone with the same experience performing the same job will make the same salary.  the markets will still determine fair pay for the job itself.  but gender should not be a factor in determining fair pay, at least in fields where women are just as capable as men. 

So are these men and women performing the same job?  or is it comparing female secretaries to male analysts or some other shady misrepresentation?  the way it's worded, i'm willing to bet that there's some misguidance there.  but i'm not surprised that the right is lining up to try and diminish what is likely to become one of the few good things to come from Obama's time in office.

if we're this worried about distractions, the only answer is to completely seperate boys and girls from middle school on.  i guarantee you girls beginning to turn into young women is much more distracting to young males than some kid's long hair or questionable t-shirt. 

I talked to the middle schooler's conservative father, not the middle schooler. Is that a choice the father should be able to make, or should you be the one to make it for him?

First off, it's also been allowed in several places. I also didnt claim that people EVERYWHERE outside of setx would disagree with the mindset here. You're putting an awful lot of words in my mouth tonight. And secondly, while the topics are kind of related, it's not the same issue.

On an interesting note, I did poll ONE conservative lumberton parent about this issue, and he answered that he would be tentatively open minded to it, but would want the option to discuss it with his child first.

I don't put the two on the same level, although you've made it abundantly clear that you do.

I'm plenty in tune with this area. I grew up here, I even attended ETBU for 4 years, which really dials you into the mindset of conservative east texas. That's why I knew that the parent they interviewed who had a problem with this would have a strong country drawl and the prerequisite camo hat before I saw the interview. Thats also why i agreed with you that my viewpoints might seem radical to some in setx. I don't disagree with you that there will be plenty of people in SETX who would raise a stink. But you said this teacher would be welcomed in very few places. I disagree. Your viewpoint is VERY southeast texas. I'm not criticizing that, but a good chunk of the country does not share the ideologies of this area. I'm not claiming to have polled parents from Lumberton... But don't believe that the viewpoints of some parents from lumberton will line up with people in all places.

SOME lumberton parents have a problem with it. I only brought that up because you called me a "radical" for not having a problem with it. So I asked two non-political people and one conservative person around me and they didn't care either. So maybe I'm not as radical as you think, or maybe you're not quite as in tune with "most places" as you might believe.

I love Roger Beard's interview for the piece: "there's some things we can accept in society that children are not gonna accept the same way that we do." Not really sure what that's supposed to mean. Later he says "they can do many things in life, but if it affects the young people, and their ability to learn and GROW NATURALLY, I think there's an issue with that." Ah, you had me until that last part. He tries to make it sound like he doesn't have a problem with transgenders, that he's only worried that its a distraction to the kids, but that one little comment belies what he's trying to portray. How is an educated sub doing their job going to affect children's ability to "grow naturally?" Oh yeah, I forgot, there are still people out there that think homosexuality or transgenderism is "catching". Just own up to your bias and admit you're uncomfortable with the situation! I can at least respect that viewpoint. But don't hide behind the "distraction" excuse! This sub had worked at this school before with no complaints. I guess only kids with parents who are uncomfortable with this topic get "distracted" by it.

I just talked to my wife and mom, neither of whom are politically active, and neither had a problem with this. Interestingly enough, I also talked to my 60-year-old conservative stepdad, who votes republican and dislikes Obama as much as you guys, and his first question: was she doing her job? Second question: did she dress inappropriate? No? Then why would I care. His kid went through lumberton schools, coincidentally enough.

[Hidden Content]

That might be a radical viewpoint in parts of southeast texas, but not in large parts of the country. I wouldn't want her teaching sex ed, if that makes you feel any better. I saw on Facebook she's got a degree in physics and is also a pilot. Certainly sounds more accomplished than most of the seat fillers that districts use as subs.