saxitoxin wrote:1. There are many occupations that, while legitimate, should not be promoted to children as "aspirational." I believe working as a car wash attendant is a legitimate occupation. However, I question the pedagogical benefit of having a car wash attendant presented as an occupation to which children should aspire.
What is wrong with promoting the occupation of car wash attendant as aspirational? The world needs car wash attendants. Without them, all our cars would be dirty as shit.
On that note, why should any occupations be promoted as more "apirational" as others? It just reinforces the cultural meme where people (mainly, men) are judged by their career choices and "social standing". It sends the message that unless you get a job as one of these things that we consider "aspirational", you're a total loser and failure in life. Shouldn't we instead be teaching kids that any profession they want to do is ok, and it doesn't decrease their worth as a human being even if they become a garbage man or a toilet cleaner?
saxitoxin wrote:2. At the age of the children reported, Grey - if she were identified by her career (which I doubt she was, ergo, negating any benefit in her appearance) - would probably have been the first formalized exposure to the topic of sex for these children (California isn't heathen Finland). Perhaps that's topic for a different thread on reproductive health education in the tightly-wound, English-speaking countries, but, regardless, describing the career of a porn star should not be the initial point-of-entry for children in learning reproductive health (again, though, I doubt her career was explained which would negate the benefit of her appearance).
Well, on that point I can agree with you, but I see it as symptomatic of a larger cultural failure: withholding sex education from children. The cure should not be banning porn stars from speaking to children, but instead offering better sex education.
