Get them while they're young
"Laura and Kyle live with their two moms, Joyce and Emily, and a poodle named Daisy. It takes all four of them to give Daisy her bath."
Another illustrated page says:
"Robin's family is made up of her dad, Clifford, her dad's partner, Henry, and Robin's cat, Sassy. Clifford and Henry take turns making dinner for their family."
These are excerpts from a kindergarten book given to 5 year olds in the Lexington, Mass. school district.
No, I'm not a homophobe. I know and have known many gay people whom I respect and like. But any parent who claims that they would not be disturbed by this book should their child bring it home from school is either lying (and perhaps insecure about their own homophobia) or is only a parent in the technical sense (i.e. they have a kid that they occasionally give their time to, much like the salesperson at the clothing store -- "May I help you? -- Let me know if you need anything").
In the spirit of liberalism, I give you this mantra -- Stay out of my child's libido! Please tell me just what else do Clifford and Henry take turns doing? And just how far are we away from that?
Here was the brilliant defense of the contents of this book by a "backer" of the Lexington School District:
"A 5-year-old who is coming to the classroom with two moms deserves to be in a classroom that includes books that show his family."
I see. And what about the child coming to the classroom with a Grand Wizard for a father and a breeder for the Klan as a mother? Shouldn't they be represented too? And if not, where do we draw the line on representations of "diversity"?
What if the kid just happened to be raised by wolves?
"Billy's mom and dad Alfa and Beta take turns mauling the bunny and shaking it until its neck breaks."
And, by the way, just how many kids are coming to the classroom accompanied by two moms? Maybe one kid in the entire school district if even that? Is that sufficient enough for representation in the book? What about the kid accompanied to school by mom and dad who are Episcopalian priests and preach the word of Jesus? Doesn't that kid deserve to have his mom and dad represented by illustrating them in the book wearing priestly garb?
Or better yet, suppose the second coming of Jesus just happens to attend school as a kid in the Lexington school district. Hmmm. Would he be entitled to have his father depicted in the book?
Another illustrated page says:
"Robin's family is made up of her dad, Clifford, her dad's partner, Henry, and Robin's cat, Sassy. Clifford and Henry take turns making dinner for their family."
These are excerpts from a kindergarten book given to 5 year olds in the Lexington, Mass. school district.
No, I'm not a homophobe. I know and have known many gay people whom I respect and like. But any parent who claims that they would not be disturbed by this book should their child bring it home from school is either lying (and perhaps insecure about their own homophobia) or is only a parent in the technical sense (i.e. they have a kid that they occasionally give their time to, much like the salesperson at the clothing store -- "May I help you? -- Let me know if you need anything").
In the spirit of liberalism, I give you this mantra -- Stay out of my child's libido! Please tell me just what else do Clifford and Henry take turns doing? And just how far are we away from that?
Here was the brilliant defense of the contents of this book by a "backer" of the Lexington School District:
"A 5-year-old who is coming to the classroom with two moms deserves to be in a classroom that includes books that show his family."
I see. And what about the child coming to the classroom with a Grand Wizard for a father and a breeder for the Klan as a mother? Shouldn't they be represented too? And if not, where do we draw the line on representations of "diversity"?
What if the kid just happened to be raised by wolves?
"Billy's mom and dad Alfa and Beta take turns mauling the bunny and shaking it until its neck breaks."
And, by the way, just how many kids are coming to the classroom accompanied by two moms? Maybe one kid in the entire school district if even that? Is that sufficient enough for representation in the book? What about the kid accompanied to school by mom and dad who are Episcopalian priests and preach the word of Jesus? Doesn't that kid deserve to have his mom and dad represented by illustrating them in the book wearing priestly garb?
Or better yet, suppose the second coming of Jesus just happens to attend school as a kid in the Lexington school district. Hmmm. Would he be entitled to have his father depicted in the book?
posted by Wonderdog | 9:24 AM | Permalink
|
9 comments
9 Comments:
Parenting issues are always very sensitive. Every parent wants the best for their child. Frequently however, as with almost everything in life, there are disagreements about what exactly is the best.
Without immediately jumping to the defense of this book, I think it is important to get the facts straight (no pun intended). The book, "Who's in a Family?" is part of a "Diversity Pack" given to children in the school district to take home and be shared with their parents. The Diversity Pack contains optional reading material, none of the reading material is required reading. In this case then, if a parent objects to the book for whatever reason, the parent can simply choose not to have their child read it.
Fair minds can disagree over what may be appropriate for children at a certain age. If one parent wants their child to read "Who's in a Family?" and another parent doesn't, I would hesitate to call either one a bad parent. I wouldn't think that someone is lying and I certainly wouldn't think that someone is insecure if they have a different parenting philosophy. They may think it is important to expose their child through a story book to a diversity of family situations. Maybe this is the way they intend to explain why the child's aunt lives with a girlfriend, or whatever.
The slippery slope argument (a Grand Wizard for a father) is a bit silly. The comparison of gay couples to couples in the KKK, or to wolves, is hardly fair. As it is, the book shows families from all walks of life: interacial families, single-parent families, divorced couples, etc. The intent of the book is to illustrate to children that "families" are different things to different people. The book does not intend to promote one lifestyle or another.
All that said, I don't want my kindergardner reading it either. Too young.
The thing about diversity is, it no longer includes what most of us remember as normal. I've sat through middle school "family life" videos where no mother or father is included. The kids go to relatives or siblings for advice. Why? Some kid might not have a mom or a dad. The only one of several videos that had actual parents depicted were a hispanic family. The rest of us just have guardians, I guess.
SHC,
First of all, I don't agree with your initial premise that "every parent wants the best for their child." If that were true there would be no crack babies. I suppose I'm a bit more cynical than you are about the manner in which a lot of our children are raised. In short, I believe many parents don't give their children the love and attention they require. Since there are bad parents out there, a lack of concern on the part of a parent regarding this book and this subject matter would indicate to me that such a parent might fall under that classification. I've seen too many children suffer from bad parenting and I'm less "hesitant" than you are to point it out.
And why do you think a parent wouldn't lie about their response to this book? Society's retribution upon one who even remotely voices dissent in this area of discussion is far greater than upon one who would hazzard a departure from its prevailing multi-culturalist tenets, even if it is in the best interest of their child. Therefore, there is great motivation to lie here. And, yes, I believe a lie as to their true concerns would hint at an insecurity in their feelings toward this subject matter. If you're secure that your concerns are merely for the welfare of your child and not based on any prejudices toward gays, then why lie? I never said a lie here necessarily meant they were insecure, only that "perhaps" they were.
As for the "slippery slope" argument, I certainly wasn't equating gay parents to the KKK or to wolves. If that were the case, you'd also have to say I was equating them to Episcopalians and Jesus. I was merely using these examples as a device to illustrate the difficulty of determining where one should draw the line on "diversity". No, I don't think gay parents are evil people who lynch heterosexuals and mutilate bunnies.
Just wanted to clear up a few quibbles I had with your comments. But since you ultimately agree that this subject matter is inappropriate for a child of this age, I guess we're not very far apart on this issue.
Thanks for stopping by Rumpus and making your voice heard.
SHC,
Forgive my inarticulateness in my last comment. I just re-read it and realized that society's "retribution" would be the same for each example I gave. (The one week old child in the house has deprived me of sleep and I should not be operating a keyboard in my condition...)
What I meant to say was that society would be harder on one who would depart from its multiculturalist tenets than one who adhered to them.
I'm just excited that Wonderdog respects and likes me. He REALLY likes me.
Wonderdog:
There is more than one issue here.
Do all parents want the best for their child? I don't know. I suspect it could be argued that part of our collective biological inheritence is an instinct to protect and provide for our children. Even people who succumb to drug addiction, I think, want their children to succeed. They are sometimes just too far gone to do what is right. It's really very complicated.
But this isn't the point of the original post. Or is it? If your problem with the "Who's in a Family?" book is because you don't think certain parents are responsible enough to handle it, you may have a point.
I am not so quick to judge what is appropriate for everyone. I do not agree that a lack of concern over a particular book with a stated purpose to celebrate diversity shows "bad parenting." Everyone who does not object to the book is a bad parent? That is a bold statement. I have no problem identifying bad parents when I see them; and I do. I am simply unwilling to say that everyone who does not object to a certain book must be a bad parent. Maybe it means I am hesitant, or maybe it means I am careful before casting judgement.
I don't think that your original statement equates gay parents to KKK members. I do think that the comparison about who should be represented in a book about diversity is unfair when on the one hand is a gay parent and on the other hand is a pack of wolves. I didn't mention in my earlier reply the couple who might be ministers because frankly, I don't have a problem with that. If the book shows couples who are priests, doctors, or whatever I think that's fine.
How about the schools just stop shoving diversity down our throats and let the parents deal with the issue of gay and lesbian parents on their own terms and in their own time?
Bravo, Stewdog. Well said. Children mature at different rates and families have differing values. Schools should stay out of these areas and teach the kids to read, write, and calculate. Once they have these basic tools, the kids can learn the rest themselves. The human race has managed to survive for eons (or 10,000 years for some) without multicultural diversity books.
SHC,
The point of my post is articulated better and more succinctly by Stewdog and CIV. I tend to meander a bit and fall prey to my sarcastic tendencies.
The bottom line is that public schools should not engage in indoctrinating our children with their social agenda -- that includes gay partners and Jesus alike. As for the "bad parenting" issue that we seem to have gotten hung up on, it is part of the point as well since parents who are not concerned with these types of tactics (i.e. "Who's in a family" books)unwittingly enable the indoctrination to succeed.
Post a Comment
<< Home