bachanon Posted October 15, 2005 Share Posted October 15, 2005 good point. thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted October 15, 2005 Share Posted October 15, 2005 good point. thanks.Now, if these goobers get to shredding books on my front lawn, well then i might have to do something about it, Like turn the sprinklers on those geezers ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daisy3600 Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 I'm new to these forums, but I'm glad I glad I found them. I've gotten some great information from you guys.I had to add my two cents about the veterans and the books. I think shredding the books sends a wrong message. I have worked with a group called Library Patrons. We read books and if age inappropriate material is found in teen or youth sections, was ask the library to move the book to the adult section. I'm not talking about books with a bad word or two. I'm talking about books that graphically describe incest, hetero and homosexual acts between teens as well as teen and adults (statutory rape). Some of it would make the editor of Penthouse blush. We ask the library to move it to an appropriate age section. You would be amazed at the resistance to simply moving the book to the adult section. If adults want to let their kids check out from the adult section, that's their right. It's their kids. But when a child checks out book from a young adult section, most people assume their kids won't be reading about a man's lust and incest of his daughter or the steamy details about two boys having homosexual sex. I would challenge you to go to their web site. Now, remember, some of the books are VERY graphic. The veterans did their thing, in part, because the library and the county don't want to move the books and the vets think these events bring publicity to the issue.librarypatrons.org Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 the vets think these events bring publicity to the issue.librarypatrons.org Welcome Daisy, You are exactly right. It brings mostly negative publicity upon themselves while increasing usage of the library and advancing the sale of more books. It's always the same with these right-wing extremists. Fake War on Christmas [what was that about?] Fake War on Books We Think Will Destroy Civilization as We Know It if We Don't Put Them Through the Chipper. Just check out their website. http://www.avidd.org/ Pretty pathetic. I can see vets spinning in their graves-especially my Dad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbigtex56 Posted January 4, 2006 Share Posted January 4, 2006 I'm new to these forums, but I'm glad I glad I found them. I've gotten some great information from you guys.I had to add my two cents about the veterans and the books. I think shredding the books sends a wrong message. I have worked with a group called Library Patrons. We read books and if age inappropriate material is found in teen or youth sections, was ask the library to move the book to the adult section. I'm not talking about books with a bad word or two. I'm talking about books that graphically describe incest, hetero and homosexual acts between teens as well as teen and adults (statutory rape). Some of it would make the editor of Penthouse blush. We ask the library to move it to an appropriate age section. You would be amazed at the resistance to simply moving the book to the adult section. If adults want to let their kids check out from the adult section, that's their right. It's their kids. But when a child checks out book from a young adult section, most people assume their kids won't be reading about a man's lust and incest of his daughter or the steamy details about two boys having homosexual sex. I would challenge you to go to their web site. Now, remember, some of the books are VERY graphic. The veterans did their thing, in part, because the library and the county don't want to move the books and the vets think these events bring publicity to the issue.librarypatrons.orgWelcome to HAIF, Daisy3600, and thanks for providing a thoughtful point of view.I accepted your challenge to visit the Library Patrons of Texas website, and believe that they have some legitimate points. The graphic nature of some of the images and imagery came as a surprise to me.But not for the reasons you may think. For some reason, the cartoon images on the website (illustrations from the books in question) included black bars across the 'questionable' body parts. Since this website is designated for concerned adults over 18, whose eyes are being spared? As an adult, I think that I can handle cartoon images of vaginas, breasts, urethas, anuses, etc. without coming unglued. Further, I can say these words out loud without blushing. "Good decision making begins with accurate and complete information." (emphasis added)Yet, that's not what's being provided on the website, is it? Apparently, there's a desire to not offend those who somehow think they're qualified to determine what is and is not offensive. And that makes me uncomfortable. Very uncomfortable.I notice that heavy emphasis is placed on passages which describe homosexual contact. Gee, aren't there any heterosexual examples that could be cited? or aren't they considered sufficiently shocking? Do some of these Library Patrons enjoy an occasional steamy romance novel themselves? Perhaps a good vetting of Danielle Steel is in order.What takes the cake is that anyone would consider Harvey Fierstein's The Sissy Duckling a shocking example of that from which our children must be protected. How is this innocent story offensive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daisy3600 Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 I would think you could have complete information without having to see what was blacked out. I think it was appropriate to black out the parts that they did. You might not mind, but there are many who would. Out of respect for them, they blacked out the private parts, while still educating people as to the accurate content of the book.As far as the books listed, there were many heterosexual situations listed:Fade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 I just revisited librarypatrons.org. After looking deeper into what they deem objectionable or not, I was bothered by their concern with the book "The Moves That Make The Man". When you read the excerpt, you will see they have taken certain words they think are offensive and use astricks [Whip your black a**.. Country ______] to protect the minds and eyes of us all. They seem to have no problem using the word "______" and variations of the word at least 14 times.When I got to the bottom of the page, it says "From www.pabbis.com".Well, I went to http://www.pabbis.com/ and then went to this page http://www.pabbis.com/author.pdfThere you will find the subversive Louisa May Alcott's "Little Women"; Maya Angelou's "I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings", James Baldwin's "Go Tell It on the Mountain".Most shocking? Laura Ingalls Wilder's "Little House on the Prairie".OK. Here's my rant. [Please, Jeebus-no more PM's, thank you.] This kind of thing drives me looney. These "Library Patrons" put an excerpt on their website censoring out ass by using "a**" but have no problem with ______, ______town and jigaboos. What is the ultimate agenda these people are pushing? They say they are just recommending books to consider-then censor out the most banal and leave in the most pornographic [iMO] ie. ______.What is up with that?I just checked my post and see that the derogatory references to blacks have been replaced with _______.This must be an automatic program the editor uses to filter out the really offensive stuff. Apparently "ass" is OK.digtex, this is what makes me uncomfortable in addition to much that you addressed. :closedeyes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeebus Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 OK. Here's my rant. [Please, Jeebus-no more PM's, thank you.You know why I PM'd you. Your rant has relevence here. There's nothing more political, besides freedom, than censorship.Keeping on point, I can agree with the more liberal base on this arguement due to this group's (librarypatrons.com) biased and somewhat overly zealous attempt of selective influence. Either censor all the adult material, or none of the adult material - but don't draw a gray crooked line down the middle and only support censorship of material that fits into the "Republican" line of thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daisy3600 Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 Wait, wait, wait you guys. Library Patrons never listed 'Little House on the Prairie' or 'Little Women' and Library Patrons never said anything about censorship. Please. Take a deep breath. Who said anything about censorship? Not me. Not Library Patrons. Only informed decisions and age appropriate material. What is wrong with moving a book to a different side of the library or putting a rating on the front so parents AND kids can know if sexual of violent material are included? The pabbiss list is a list of books that have been challenged. By the way, I've never noticed the reference to that group or even heard of them until you mentioned it in your post but I will address it anyway. They compiled a huge list to give parents a resource so, if they see a title on the list, they may want to look at it before their kiddos do. If the book is found to have material the parent thinks is not appropriate, they are informed that they have a right to challenge the book. What's wrong with that? Some books are removed because the content is not age appropriate, some are moved to a higher grade and some are left on the shelf. The books are still published and available through the public library or stores. Many school libraries accept books and they go on the shelf before the librarian or staff have a chance to read them. That site recommend that each parent review the book to see if it is suitable for their child. They state, "This list of lists was developed in response to reader recommendations and requests for information. You should not determine that a book on this list is inappropriate or objectionable for your child without first obtaining more information. Find out what is in the book. Make the determination yourself. While a book on the list of lists can be an indication that you might find it inappropriate for your child, it should not be used as the sole reason to make that determination."The books they give excerpts from are books that are in public schools and contain graphic sex, incest, rape and murder. Reading material suitable for Penthouse letters is not necessary to teach our kids. As far as the book with every other word the 'n' word on the Library Patrons site, using that word that many times is why they want people to know what's in it. This has nothing to do with Republican or Democrat. I know a number of Democrats who don't think books that include graphic gang rapes or descriptions of teens having sex in public at a party are needed to educate our children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeebus Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 Wait, wait, wait you guys. Library Patrons never listed 'Little House on the Prairie' or 'Little Women' and Library Patrons never said anything about censorship. Please. Take a deep breath. Who said anything about censorship? Not me. Not Library Patrons. Only informed decisions and age appropriate material. What is wrong with moving a book to a different side of the library or putting a rating on the front so parents AND kids can know if sexual of violent material are included?The point was that the criteria by which they use to select which books are deemed unappropriate seems biased to fit their political view - and not one of general concern.I'm all for putting the adult content on the top shelf. Just be black and white about what is and is not adult content. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 The point was that the criteria by which they use to select which books are deemed unappropriate seems biased to fit their political view - and not one of general concern.I'm all for putting the adult content on the top shelf. Just be black and white about what is and is not adult content.Man, I so agree with this post. Thank you, Jeebs, for putting it in such obvious terms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daisy3600 Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 The criteria, from what I have seen, is over the top explicit, graphic sex or excessive use of profanity in the young adult section. Now, your definition of over the top and my definition of over the top may be different. That's why they usually ask that the very, very graphic books be moved, not the ones with a couple of bad words. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbigtex56 Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 The criteria, from what I have seen, is over the top explicit, graphic sex or excessive use of profanity in the young adult section. Now, your definition of over the top and my definition of over the top may be different. That's why they usually ask that the very, very graphic books be moved, not the ones with a couple of bad words.I don't recall any explicit, graphic sex or excessive use of profanity in The Sissy Duckling. Further, there are no references to homosexuality in this book."No one's mind is going to be changed on this forum."You know, my mind could have been changed, if only Library Patrons hadn't discredited their own organization. Don't claim to provide "complete and accurate information", and follow with incomplete and inaccurate information. I suggest that any information about Library Patrons be moved to the Fiction section of the library. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daisy3600 Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 I thing Daisy could have addressed the issue of the use of racial slurs in an excerpt on librarypatrons.org that I brought up earlier.In any event, I'm in agreement with dbigtex and Jeebus. Be upfront about what you are really calling objectionmable. If using the "N" word is OK with you while "ass" isn't, come out and say it. Don't hide behind, "...I've never noticed the reference to that group or even heard of them..." re: pabbis.com. If you were going to work with a group like Library Patrons perhaps you could investigate who the align themselves with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rps324 Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 I really don't understand the problem with the Sissy Duckling book. Heaven forbid children be exposed to gay characters! There are children being raised by gay parents, talk about your exposure to gay characters, and no legitimate study shows that it creates undo problems for the children. When you count in all the kids with gay Aunts & Uncles, there is already a lot of "exposure" going on that in no way is harmful to these children. Objections to the Sissy Duckling has everything to do with the adults homophobic prejudices & nothing to do with damaging young minds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevfiv Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 i agree in shelving appropriately (for ease of locating, if nothing else). after reading through the pabbis website, i can see where concern from other forumers has arisen... -pabbis has librarypatrons.org second on their list of links. -the site lists highly subjective items such as "good taste" as a determination for "bad books" -it also seems to leave out the importance of raising children with enough sense to choose not to read (or continue to read) "questionable" material, and/or to read "questionable" material with and open yet thoughtful mind. admittedly, i am not a parent, so i cannot be sure that open minded yet thoughtful parents spawn open minded yet thoughtful children. this is one of my favorites from the site: There are a lot of bad books in the schools and it is getting worse- Your child might have read the bad book, or participated in classroom discussions on it before you found out - It is hard to know what book they might encounter in school next and if there will be anything in it that you don’t want your child to read or discuss in school - Some other child will encounter the same book again, in the same or another school, resulting in another surprised parent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bachanon Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 great arguments everyone. i'm enjoying this thread quite a bit.hang in there daisy. you're up against some of our most articulate and prolific posters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeebus Posted January 5, 2006 Share Posted January 5, 2006 great arguments everyone. i'm enjoying this thread quite a bit.hang in there daisy. you're up against some of our most articulate and prolific posters.I agree, good debate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daisy3600 Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 rps324, objections to the book has nothing to do with homophobia. It Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 As far as why the Library Patrons site used **** for a** and didn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeebus Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 Again, I ask ‘What is wrong with moving a book to a different side of the library or putting a rating on the front so parents AND kids can know if sexual of violent material are included?’and‘Don't you agree that books describing graphic sex and rape should probably be placed in the adult section instead of the young adult or teen section?’There is nothing with that, and I think I speak for the board when I say that we all agree that explicit material should be placed out of reach of children. What is being debated here is over what is considered adult content, and what set of morals are being used to determine this content. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rps324 Posted January 6, 2006 Share Posted January 6, 2006 If there are parents who don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sevfiv Posted May 2, 2007 Share Posted May 2, 2007 another case, this time Steinbeck's Of Mice and MenJeffery Jordan's 16-year-old son is a junior at Atascocita High School. After reading a few excerpts of John Steinbeck's "Of Mice and Men," he wants the book banned because of its strong language. The book is on Humble ISD's approved reading list and tells the story of migrant workers in California during the great depression."I couldn't believe this was permitted at the school," said Jordan. "I just couldn't believe it."http://abclocal.go.com/ktrk/story?section=...&id=5264600 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KatieDidIt Posted May 2, 2007 Share Posted May 2, 2007 Yet these are the same parents that let their kids listen to Ludicris and other songs about Booty and Lady Lumps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted May 2, 2007 Share Posted May 2, 2007 Yet these are the same parents that let their kids listen to Ludicris and other songs about Booty and Lady Lumps. "pot calling the kettle black" might not be appropriate in this instance! LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blocked writer Posted May 2, 2007 Share Posted May 2, 2007 Yet these are the same parents that let their kids listen to Ludicris and other songs about Booty and Lady Lumps. Did it say that in the story? If not, that's a big assumption. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VicMan Posted May 3, 2007 Share Posted May 3, 2007 I read Of Mice and Men in middle school - I believe it was the 6th grade.The book is perfectly okay for middle and high school audiences.I remembered watching two film versions - One version starred a girl who looked like my 6th and 8th grade science teacher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.