New binarisms (aka Evil politicians)

[MASCARO at humnet.ucla.edu]

Henry M. asks a good question:
>
>Sorry your son got so upset (really), but sounds to me like You're upset that 
>it was Aids. Your son would have had the same questions if it had 
>been the big C, but would you have thought it was so wrong for them 
>to mention the disease then?
>
On thinking carefully, I would have to say, yeah, the fact that it was AIDS is 
significant.  My son knows what cancer is; saw a grandmom survive and recover 
from radiation therapy when he was six.  AIDS is constructed so different, socially.  
And this difference matters.  We have lost several deardear friends to it; it is not 
easy to comprehend or to talk about.  It requires one to talk about so many other 
things that are themselves hard to talk about--though we do talk and talk honestly 
enough in our family.  At eight my son didn't know, nor have to know much 
about sex (IMO), he didn't need to know what "homosexuality" is--is there even 
such a thing?   Isn't the   concept socially constructed also?There are only actions, 
right? So how do you talk about something that you have trouble even accepting 
the social definition of to a grieving and confused eight year old?  I don't think we 
can anwer these questions, and I apologize again for this tangent, but my anger was 
at this school/village (many of whose trustees were at the Clinton/Streisand fund 
raising fete; that's the milieu I am referencing) and its assumpotion that their 
answers (oh, there were experts at this assembly--psychologists and social workers, 
all there to provide--expert--advice) didn't require parental consultation or even 
notice.  Thanks for the probing question, Henry.  I will shut down this soapbox 
now.

john m