I thought kids were homeschooled for that very reason, to keep them out of the environment of the public school system. I didn’t see the episode you’re talking about, but is the general impression that Nancy Drew is stupid and so only homeschoolers would like the movie because they, by extension, are stupid? Or that it is non-violent?
If the latter, it goes without saying that most parents who homeschool would prefer their child see a non-violent, family friendly picture. Am I mistaken? I’m not defending this guy, like I said I didn’t see it. But wondering what the insult was?
Wilonsky implied by his comment that this movie would be too ‘simple’ for public-schooled students (as in they couldn’t relate to it since there was no drinking, drugs or sex at her birthday party apparently, and Nancy is portrayed as too ‘innocent’ by today’s standards — according to Mr. Wilonsky). Roeper pointed out that the character of Nancy Drew in the movie was kind of a 1950s-style wholesome girl.
Again, when Roeper stated that he thought 12-year-old girls would love this movie, Wilonsky replied with a scoff “Maybe Homeschooled 12-year-olds”. (Roeper gave it a thumbs-up and Wilonsky gave it a thumbs down...).
And yes, most homeschoolers do so because of the environment in public schools that they do not wish their children to be exposed to, but there are many reasons for homeschooling. What was offensive to me was Wilonsky’s attitude and condescending tone of voice.
There was absolutely no reason for him to bring up homeschooling, and doing so unfairly (IMO) paints homeschoolers as overly sheltered, immature children. As others have pointed out it’s a backhanded compliment of sorts, but the tone of voice Wilonsky employed in his commentary made it clear that he meant his comment as an insult.