I'm trying to read "An author was set to read his unicorn book to students. The school forbade it" by Jaclyn Peiser.
How does it happen that an author gets into the position of being "set to read" his book to a captive audience of children? There are thousands of authors who might want access to children. They can't all be sitting there in a little chair reading their book to a bunch of kids who've been forced to sit quietly at their feet and receive the ideas they've put into a book. You can love books and hate censorship and still want to carefully control what books are read to the children in your care!
The article begins "Jason Tharp wants to write books for weird kids...." He's written a book and, we're told:
On April 6, as Tharp prepared to read “It’s Okay to Be a Unicorn!” to students the next day at an elementary school in the Buckeye Valley Local School District, north of Columbus...
But wait! Why was he there? By what process had he acquired this gig? We're suddenly in the middle of things. He had a scheduled appearance before the little schoolkids, but who invited him and why? He was singled out and brought in. How does that happen?
We're only told about the withdrawal of the invitation.
[H]e got a call from the principal saying higher-ups didn’t want him reading the book. “I just straight up asked him, ‘Does somebody think I made a gay book?’ ” Tharp said.
I wonder if he asked the same question when he received the invitation. Or did he assume they wanted him in the first place because they thought it was a gay pride book that would suit very young children?
“And [the principal] said, ‘Yes. … The concern is that you’re coming with an agenda to recruit kids to become gay.’ ”
If that quote is accurate, the principal sounds sarcastic, gesturing vaguely at parents who are afraid the school wants to indoctrinate their children on the subject of sexuality. Those words mock the parents' desire to control the education of their children by making them sound ignorant, worrying that an adult can cause a child to "become gay." (By the way, I wonder if some parents might find the book transphobic: If the unicorn's problem is not looking like the horses, why isn't the solution to have the horn removed?)
I've read this article to the end, and I never learned how or why Tharp received the invitation to read to the children. I do see that the school ordered over 500 copies of the book for the event! This isn't about censorship. This is about lots of money and privilege going to one author as opposed to other authors. It's hard to believe this book was chosen because of its value as literature as opposed to its value as propaganda. There are so many children's books on the general theme of feeling like an outsider and then finding a way to be happy.
Now, I do see the problem: A scheduled event was was cancelled. But we can't understand the full story unless we know why this book was chosen. This article should give us the complete narrative and should have at least some regard for the parents who want to guide their children's understanding of sexuality and who fear that the schools are crowding them out and exploiting the access they have to children. Can the schools own up to their plan to help children feel happy about diversity — including diversity in sexual orientation and gender identity — and explain how a book like this is therefore excellent and thoroughly wholesome? That's the kind of speech that is demanded, that the parents have a right to receive, and that seems to be withheld, perhaps on the theory that too many parents are stupid or hateful. Don't censor that speech. Come out in the open and say clearly what you are doing and why. It's okay. Isn't it?
Posts
78 comments:
Good catch.
Who, what, when, why, where, how.
While the educrats are going crazy because the light turned on and the world can see what they are doing, I have no idea why they are doing "it".
What happens if sexuality, never makes a presence in K-3? What is the down fall to advance the goal of learning how to read and cypher? That is the only thing I care about....all the rest I (parent) am the only person that is capable of teaching.
Cargo cults.
Many people don't understand cause, effect, or context but want to win regardless of what they desire and from wherever they start. When all you want or understand is equal outcomes for all...cargo cult logic dominates.
Halloween dress up = I'm real, I'm credible, I'm justified.
WaPo, NYT, and Twitter readers gobble it up.
"It's hard to believe this book was chosen because of it's value as literature as opposed to propaganda."
It's hard to believe! It's hard to believe progs gonna do their prog thing!
"There are so many children's books on the general theme of feeling like an outsider and then finding a way to be happy."
As if the pursuit of happiness matters. Such a 1776 notion.
"This article should give us the full narrative and should give some regard to the parents"
It should! It really should! It's bad that it didn't! They should be better!
"Can the schools own up to their plan to help children feel happy about diversity, including diversity in sexual orientation and gender identity, and explain how a book like this is therefore excellent and thoroughly wholesome?"
Yes and no. They can, but they prefer not to. Why does anyone need to explain anything to deplorable yahoos? Hegemonic power needs no explanation. Except that prog hegemony is now being questioned.
"That's the kind of speech that is demanded, that the parents have a right to receive, and that seems to be withheld, perhaps on the theory that too many parents are stupid or hateful."
Perhaps!
Not trying to give Althouse a hard time here. I appreciate her taking note of these maneuvers in the culture war, and I view her reactions as indicators that, as nice, reasonable women take note along with her, the war hasn't been lost yet.
An elementary school.
A reading arranged with no apparent involvement of parents.
Any bets that this was arranged by a gay rights advocacy group and that the "school" was getting a cut of the book sales?
Ann Althouse said, "That's the kind of speech that is demanded, that the parents have a right to receive, and that seems to be withheld, perhaps on the theory that too many parents are stupid or hateful. Don't censor that speech. Come out in the open and say clearly what you are doing and why. It's okay. Isn't it?"
This is why I read Althouse. Because occasionally, which is more often than most, she articulates a viewpoint that hasn't been well articulated before.
My wife and I are going through this exact back and forth with our children's school. We ask, "What are you teaching and why?" The school's answer boils down to, "Trust us."
Well, the education establishment's handling of Covid has burned off any residual storehouse of trust that may have existed. It's time for "Trust, but verify."
Althouse writes: "I'll bet most WaPo readers don't notice that the story is incomprehensible."
Easy money. Too bad the Two-Dollar ticket pays only 2 cents.
Why won't someone stand up and state honestly, "I want 5 year old children exposed to discussion of transgenderism and homosexuality because..."
Say it proudly and truthfully and openly. What's to hide? There are a lot of weasel-words in this discussion, and in this article. Why?
I think it's telling that the article says "elementary school" and never mentions the age of the kids or what grade.
There's a photograph, but it can't be of the event that was cancelled.
Anyway, in that photograph, the children look very young. Are they first and second graders? Also, now that I've looked closely at the photo, I see the kids have all made headbands with an upright horn. They're all being a unicorn.
"lots of money and privilege going to one author as opposed to other authors"
Is there enough generosity in the universe to allow that this honestly goes unnoticed by those whose(?) bread is being buttered in the process? Is it fair to say that they know that we know that they know? A lack of transparency would seem to indicate that it is fair to say. Seeking publicity after the fact also highlights weaselly nature of the players.
BTW, Kudos to the "higher-ups".
Democracy Dies in Darkness!
"500 copies"
Looking at the school district's website, it seems that's a copy for every kid in K through 2 or 1 through 3, in two different buildings. Regardless of message, that's a mayor-of-Baltimore level subsidy.
"That's the kind of speech that is demanded, that the parents have a right to receive, and that seems to be withheld, perhaps on the theory that too many parents are stupid or hateful. Don't censor that speech. Come out in the open and say clearly what you are doing and why. It's okay. Isn't it?"
Yeah. Except I think that the school officials don't agree with a single one of your assertions, probably because they recognize that what they were doing would be strenuously resisted by some families.
We can only speculate.
When I was a child, the Reformed Church had a missionary who came to the public school classrooms and took ten minutes to give a little homily that usually included a reference to Original Sin and the fallen nature of mankind. A teacher, who had grown up in the community, objected to the practice to the school district superintendent on the grounds that many children in the classroom came from different religious backgrounds, and the missionary had no place in the public schools. The missionary was cut off from access to the schools.
Everything old is new again.
This is the first time I have seen -- or at least noticed -- the word medias in that Latin expression. I always have perceived the word to be only media.
I did some Google browsing and found examples of both words. To my surprise, there were more examples of medias.
I suppose that my brain has been subconsciously changing the word medias to media whenever I come across the word medias.
Creighton University canceled an event where Jack Posobiec was set to speak.
Do I know what "medias res" is?
Maybe the author really is a groomer.
Anyway, this is just the WaPo is just using the same script liberals have been using for 50 years. Story? Right-wing bigots, icky Republican Christian types, stupidly try to censor smart, free-spirited artists who just want to entertain and/or help people, or CHALLANGE them to think.
If this book author had been a conservative, then the WaPo story would've been switched, and been told from the vantage point of the OUTRAGED liberal parent, who found that some Right-wing bigot was propagandizing small children with their HATE or forcing their icky Christian values down their throats making the non-christians feel insecure and scared.
Conservative parent doesn't like school book reading = nasty censor
Liberal parent doesn't like school book reading = Noble fighter for parent rights.
Maybe the author can get the FBI to investigate the "Domestic Terrorists" who stopped the book reading.
My mother used to volunteer to read to k thru 3rd grades when I was in school. Occasionally she would use a felt board with felt characters (that she made) to accompany the story. When I was about 9 she ended up getting a job as a librarian in our district. Even after she got a different job she continued to be a reader at different schools until she was in her 60’s.
I volunteered in the school library for my son grades 2 thru 10.
At the schools in our district a person (who doesn’t have to be a parent) can volunteer to read to kids. You have to take a TB test and pass a background check then you are good to go. Schools are desperate for people to spend time reading to groups of kids who are struggling. Not everyone has a parent who will sit and read to them each night. The majority of these volunteers (in my past experience) are retired people. At our schools the teacher has books to choose from or must approve the books brought in by the reader.
So in my experience this has been going on since the early 1970’s.
I heard the same story last night on NPR's Canadian Ministry of Information show As It Happens. You can listen to it at the 10:45 mark of the April 14 episode here:
https://www.npr.org/podcasts/456705662/as-it-happens
Again, the story is presented as an outrage that befalls the well-meaning author, who has read this story to thousands of children and now gets on major news outlets because of the suspicions of one parent and the craven cowardice of higher-ups in some benighted school district.
This is similar to the Maus-Raus incident, with the radiomen incredulous that anyone could push back on Unicorn recruitment. Wholesomeness is too much to ask for when there are kids minds to mold, and this is just the kind of story to make NPR/CBC listeners howl with rage at the unicorniphobic dolts who don't want to leave the molding to the proper authorities. Hey parents, leave those kids alone!
They don't tell the necessary details of the story because those details would unend the article's desired narrative formation.
“They’re all being unicorns”
Uh huh. Let’s be Devil’s Advocate for a moment. What happens to society if we’re “all gay” or “all trans” in their fantasies? Hint: Look at Sri Lanka’s attempt to go “all organic” to see how these Progressive fetishes work out “at scale.”
'You can love books and hate censorship and still want to carefully control what books are read to the children in your care!'
This is the exact point of the recent FL law.
It is a matter of what is appropriate for K-4th graders to learn about a particular topic, especially when that topic has millions of crazy advocates wishing to indoctrinate children...
There is a time and place that is appropriate...
Is our hostess ready to accept that the left us grooming very young kids into their sexual preferences and ideology. And they are not using that time to competently teach reading, writing and math. School vouchers for all. End government schools.
I'm surprised feminists haven't objected to the use of the phallo-centric image of the unicorn horn to support and reify the patriarchal and oppressive roots of reading to children in schools.
Once, when I was very young, first or second grade, I was selected, along with a young girl in my class, to go to the first grade and kindergarten classes in our school and read them children's books. I swear I had no agenda. And I can only think now that the teachers only agenda was showing the other kids that reading can be fun. I don't remember what the books were, but I am sure they featured bunnies, puppies, happy squirrels, and kids doing good things. That's the sort of thing we used to teach kids. What I did not do is unknowingly read about gender dysphoria, trans kids, gay sex, or any allusion to sex whatsoever.
One wonders why the Left is so adamantly obsessed with sex even though statistically, the younger generation is having less than any known previous generation. Wait. I think I just answered my own question.
Anyway...the author of this book has a good manager or PR person because he got the deal to have 500 of his books ready for sale. And you can be sure as today is Good Friday and Passover all in one, that either the teacher, or the Principal, or both, were getting a cut of the sales, had they happened. Much has changed since the days of having small school kids read to other small school kids about bunnies and puppies. Now we have professional agitators & activists masquerading as 'educators' working on your kids for 8 hours/day, 5 days/week. And if you question any of their motives toward your kids, you are considered barbarians.
Well...it's also interesting to note that for about 15 or so years, conservative speakers have been shut down from speaking engagements at universities, colleges, high schools, graduation ceremonies, civic auditoriums, and at award ceremonies, among other places. From Abigail Shrier, Alan West, and Charles Murray, to Justice Clarence Thomas, Ben Shapiro, and Ayaan Hirsi Ali, and so many others- probably numbering toward the hundreds. That, while everyone knew their politics. Nothing was hidden. Only the hope of letting people hear another side. Not sneaking it in front of the students (or whomever), but inviting a mix of speakers to places where intellectual debate should be going on 24/7. But of course, intellectual debate on campus has been canceled as well.
So now parents are getting a look at what's being dumped into their kids minds and have to ask: Why? Why at this age? Why these topics? And parents are now jumpy and assuming that there is an agenda. And it's one they do not agree with, did not request, and are not going to pay for. So, you can call it cancellation, but it's a shot across the bow. Either the schools figure out their proper role, or they will cease to exist as public education.
What the market does not want, you cannot coerce into being. You can try coercion, but it is not sustainable.
The poor benighted author--who will collect the royalties on the sale of 500 books, has been treated to the standard leftist diktat--"Because. Shut up." Worms will turn.
Squirrel
Hawkeyedjb@8:39
That's exactly where I'm at.
Tell me what you are doing and explain it to me.
Absent that simple action, It is nothing but grooming.
K-5 don't need any sex/gender exposure...from the school. Teachers are uniquely inept in this area of childhood development. Much worse than a parent doing it wrong, whatever that might look like.
I still can't imagine the scenario, where ignoring this in schools leads to problems.
Howard saw a squirrel, and got distracted from the subject.
Personally, I don't know what the book is actually about or why he was invited, but I am enraged at the idea of this guy mansplaining unicorns. If I know one thing about unicorns it's they are highly suspicious around men and non-maiden women.
I can't help think he's like Voldemort drinking unicorn blood to hold onto the barest form of his own continued diminished life.
Of course, I don't know anything about the author, but do appreciate the way that barest parts of bigger stories can be inflated to tell whatever moral lesson we think is needed, so my version is my truth about what is real in this situation.
"that's a mayor-of-Baltimore level subsidy"
Very well put!
Rainbows and unicorns are the Trojan Horse. Take a look at your beloved, highly processed boxed foods marketed to children by General Mills, Kraft and the like. See if you don’t spot the drift toward rainbows and unicorns in your lucky charms and coco puffs. The other day a friend pulled out of her pantry a box of Mac n cheese to make for her grandchildren. Rainbow and unicorn shapes, rainbows and unicorns all over the box. Rainbows and unicorns are magical! They are good for you! They are harmless! They are everywhere!
On a related note, whatever happened to all those Catholic Priests who were grooming, oops, I men molesting, teenage boys in the church? Seldom if ever girls or pre-teens. That used to be considered a bad thing, even among the progressives/fascists. (Still is, IMHO)
Is that narrative no longer operational? Are these priests now just helping young boys figure out their sexuality? Now it is a good thing?
Seems like the schools/teachers are doing nearly the same thing except with younger children.
Or maybe the Catholic church has gotten rid of all its gay priests which is why we never hear more about it.
John LGKTQ Henry
"One wonders why the Left is so adamantly obsessed with sex even though statistically, the younger generation is having less than any known previous generation. Wait. I think I just answered my own question."
Here's the answer that came to my mind: It makes perfect sense. The left-wing political obsession with sex makes sex political, but that makes it less desirable/ Who wants political sex? Much of what used to pass for desirable sex is now rape or near rape. You're a bigot if you're not trans-inclusive. You have to promote body positivity. If you have this fervor to fit in and you adopt all the beliefs you're supposed to, maybe just don't have sex. It's the safe choice, like staying home during covid.
Quite a few pages of Tharp's book can be displayed at Amazon.
One thing is that the horses are all bigots and just hate unicorns. No particular reason. They're just bad, those horses. They're haters. Anybody in your family like that?
What I don't like about it as something for the young is that it portrays others as irrational and ignorant. Can't a child learn good things from the elders? No, they're all benighted. It's for the kid to figure out how bloom without their help.
Often kids' books do this. Everyone's an idiot or worse, but the kid is resourceful and prevails.
In a comment above, Ann Althouse says: I think it's telling that the article says "elementary school" and never mentions the age of the kids or what grade.
Last night, on NPR All Things Considered, there was a segment on the Florida law that deals with this, the so-called Don't Say Gay law. As I understand the law, it deals with grades one through three. On NPR, it was described simply as a law dealing with how gender issues could be discussed "in public schools."
'You have to promote body positivity.'
This trend needs to die.
I walked into a Nike store the other day, and at least half of the mannequins would be clinically obese if real people.
Magazine covers, posters, billboards...all of extremely fat people (often black women-presenting) are everywhere.
This is dangerous and cruel. 5'2" and 280 pounds is a health hazard. It is not beautiful except to a very few fat fetishists.
Stop with 'fat is beautiful.'
If you look at Jason Tharp's book on Amazon, you see a guy who says he is all about providing positive messages to "weird" kids. Then there is this: "It's Okay To Be A Unicorn! is an inspiring story about the rainbow magic of kindness." And this: " “Tharp's good-natured fable is bright and rainbow-y . . . will resonate with any who have felt 'other.'” —Kirkus Reviews"
All worthy sentiments, all important messages.
Those of us who have gay siblings or children or friends usually understand how difficult their lives were as they found their way forward. BUT, the adoption of the rainbow flag by the gay community may well have some fallout. If I liked this guy's books and I wanted to support him, I would never throw "rainbow" into a blurb. It is like waving a red flag in front of a bull.
Here is another article with perhaps more detail than the democracy darkening WaPo that I can't read. It is careful to point out that not only is Jason Tharp "straight" but also that he is "married" (Doesn't say whether to a man or woman)
The Let's Get Biden To Quit movement is also poking its nose in.
https://watermarkonline.com/2022/04/14/its-okay-to-be-a-unicorn-author-asked-to-exclude-book-from-presentation/
I would not mind if it were actually about LGBTQ, perhaps the kids could carry the message home with them. Unfortunately, like so much else, they are using LGBTQ in the corrupted sense of Lesbian Gay, Bi, Trans and Queer.
John LGKTQ Henry
One thing is that the horses are all bigots and just hate unicorns. No particular reason. They're just bad, those horses. They're haters. Anybody in your family like that?
Compare and contrast.
Those icky Christian schools that not only teach, but live, a philosophy. 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.' Translate to something not so scary, 'treat others they way you want to be treated.
If someone hurts you, turn the other cheek. Don't return the aggression. God loves you. And God does not make junk. God knows you are worth it. Are you doing Gods will.
Makes you wonder what the goal is. Horses as the haters? Sounds like they are teaching tribalism. That will end well.
Teaching tribalism
Teaching acceptance and grace.
One of these is banned in public schools, one is encouraged.
I'm sure the WaPo readers outraged by this would also support Matt Walsh reading his transphobic "Johnny the Walrus" at a school with the school purchasing 500 books.
Yes?
We just need to give parents vouchers and let them choose where to send their kids to school.
I will send my kids to a school that doesn't waste money on stupid books like this.
I will send them to a place where they learn to read write and do math until 3rd or 4th grade where they start to branch out into history and the classical liberal education we had when I was growing up with some Java and Python thrown in.
Was the unicorn's name Rudolf?
My theory: The left is "obsessed with sex" because that is how adolescents are. The left is composed of adolescents and older people who never developed beyond adolescence emotionally and intellectually. They are all cases of arrested development. Now, don't ask me why their development was arrested, that's the big question. It seems to have begun around 1960, when things like, "Question authority," and "Don't trust anyone over thirty," and best of all, "Hope I die before I get old" gained popularity. Apparently, the generation that came of age at that time actually believed that bullshit and allowed their lives to stagnate in that belief. It's why Rock'n'Roll became the popular music of the day, with its themes of sex, drugs and rebellion being dominant in the genre. Don't get me wrong, I like that music as much as the next Boomer and still bang around on my '59 Strat through a Dual Reverb reissue. But it's not what gives meaning to my life; my wife, kids and grandkids do that. I am living proof that it is possible to mature while still retaining the ability to appreciate the trappings of youth.
I thought this line in the article was funny...
“Another parent teamed up with Tharp to start a GoFundMe to raise money for a free event next month, when the author will read his unicorn book and share his story.”
Why do you have to raise money for a free event?
We recently moved and are now in the Buckeye Valley school district. Not seeing much outrage in the local news on this issue.
Books are funny. Different people don’t like different books for a variety of reasons. I was never a fan of “ The Rainbow Fish” with my kids. The rainbow fish was born with scales that others liked. And had to be compelled to share until he only had one left. You can’t help how you are born or why other people are jealous
Tharp has built a big-time business operation out of his drawing and public speaking, often to elementary school students but also to business people and others.
I don't think he's selling homosexuality, I think he's selling snowflakeism, at least when he's performing for kids.
Building self confidence in children is a good thing, but a constant, repetitive diet of "you're special," "you're the good guy and everyone else is bad," "others should conform to your particular needs and wants and but should not conform to theirs," etc. has given us the overgrown children we see every day now in our universities and in our streets.
This is just more of that.
Tony Robbins for junior achievers.
And it pays well.
And I'll bet Mr. Tharp made sure that if they didn't put all the facts in the story, they damn sure spelled his name correctly and got the hotlink right and placed at the top of the article.
In Howard's defense, I have to point out that he is, indeed, a nut.
When did it become the role and responsibility of public schools to concern themselves with the moral upbringing of their students? It seems like the PRIMARY mission of schools these days, in the minds of teachers and administrators, is to make sure kids end up holding progressive social values, whether those relate to human sexuality, race, or whatever. Did I miss the national plebiscite where we all voted in favor of this shift in focus away from actual EDUCATION?
I propose a shift in the overton window: Instead of our objecting to individual instances in which a school goes overboard in trying to foist on students a particularly objectionable progressive notion, let's start objecting to the inclusion of ANY instruction as to personal or social beliefs as part of the curriculum, except in the context of history lessons (e.g., teaching about abolition and the civil rights movement) or civics (teaching about the social/political values enshrined in the founding documents). There's plenty of other material to cover: English, science, math, music, and history come to mind. This business of the schools' trying to shape a child's social values and moral development as a fundamental aspect of the educational mission really needs to stop.
I know we're not supposed to judge books by their cover, but on the face of it, this book looks like it's code for coming out as gay. That may not be what was intended, but the use of rainbows and "it's ok" title sure makes it seem that way. Like it or not, rainbows are a political symbol. We live in a age where everything is politicized (by the left, mostly), even rainbows, and the author shouldn't plead ignorance to that.
Moreover, there is a concerted effort by leftists, particularly the radical gay and trans movements to use schools to indoctrinate kids into their political ideology, not just "turn them gay" though there is clearly some of that going on as well. As a result, parents are far more sensitive to these types of situations than they might otherwise be, and for good reason since leftists outright lie and/or hide their true intentions, except those that accidentally tell the truth (as seen on @libsoftiktok).
The problem is the left never sees anything they do as aggression in the culture war or even politics at all. They believe politics begins only when there's an objection to what they're pushing and act incredulous when that occurs. That's what happening here. Leftists can't believe anyone could possibly object to a children's book about unicorns and rainbows and being yourself. Even if the unicorn story isn't about being gay and just letting your freak flag fly, that's a still a rather subversive story to teach to young impressionable children in schools, which are designed to preach conformity.
The author's story is one of hiding his true identity, but he never says what that means beyond simply being a dreamer. I don't think he's gay and if he is, he isn't public about it. Perhaps, its because he writes kids books, or maybe it's because he is married with older children. His wife's facebook has some pro-gay agenda stuff on it, and she comes off as a standard progressive, pink-hair, nose-ring type person, so take that for what it's worth. Tharp's politics are probably similar.
I don't see a subject, Iowan2. It's a meaningless distraction used by both ends to move the middle. Thanks for playing your role as a useful idiot, which makes your personality type closer to The Squad than normals.
The ancient religion, diversity [dogma], nominally "secular" motives, and an internal feud across the bands of the transgender spectrum, with captive children, and mom and dad under threat of cancellation, caught in the middle.
"One wonders why the Left is so adamantly obsessed with sex"
1. It's the ultimate form of power. When you finally control sex and family, you control everything. By the same token, sex and family tend to involve passions not easy to control that could be sources of resistance.
2. Sex and its regulation were a key part of the old order. The Left aims to construct a new one. Therefore, the revolution must also be sexual. The grooming serves ideological more than prurient interests.
3. Divide and conquer. Using sex ed to divide families alienates kids from parents, breaking a powerful social bond. Big brother steps in to "protect" the rights of the child. Example: shoving parents aside when they object to the mutilation of their teens, or just refuse to use certain pronouns.
"One thing is that the horses are all bigots and just hate unicorns. No particular reason. They're just bad, those horses. They're haters. Anybody in your family like that?"
The first time I noticed that was in "Horton Hears a Who". Everyone thinks it's a charming little kids story, but it is actually socialist propaganda, starting with the evil monkeys who take Horton's flower away, ending with the Who mayor finding that one, last little Who was not with the government's Big Plan, and getting him to join the struggle. It's ironic that the Commies decided to cancel Seuss, because he was Commie to his core.
Wow! The comments on that article are SUPER LIT!!!!
Many things have changed in this century. Journalism, funded for generations by advertising that now has moved online, has re-oriented itself as the deliberate promotion of political agendas favored by readers (okay, subscribers -- nobody reads anymore) who want only to see "news" that gratifies their opinions. It's the new business model, and we might as well acknowledge it as such.
It would be nice if professional educators, however, acknowledged their agendas in the preparation of students. Parents and citizens have every right to know what political points of view are being "taught" to children enrolled in public schools.
Am I the only one alive that thinks we should be teaching kids a more generic "be nice and respectful to everyone even those you don't understand very well" philosophy, instead of this attempt to focus on the marginalized group of the day?
Ann Althouse said...
["One wonders why the Left is so adamantly obsessed with sex even though statistically, the younger generation is having less than any known previous generation. Wait. I think I just answered my own question."]
"Here's the answer that came to my mind: It makes perfect sense. The left-wing political obsession with sex makes sex political, but that makes it less desirable/ Who wants political sex? Much of what used to pass for desirable sex is now rape or near rape. You're a bigot if you're not trans-inclusive. You have to promote body positivity. If you have this fervor to fit in and you adopt all the beliefs you're supposed to, maybe just don't have sex. It's the safe choice, like staying home during covid."
Thus the morphing of Progressives continues apace, from Puritans to Pharisees to Inquisitors to Stasi enforcers.
Never make horses the villians. People love horses. Dogs can be villians, but only if you make it just a couple "bad" dogs contrasted with all the other "good" dogs.
Otters/Ducks/Geese aren't villians either. Or kittens.
Sharks = bad. But Dolphins = good.
Am I the only one who never was read "Children's books" as a little kid? I can rememeber peanuts, Dr. Seuss, and maybe some others, but I basically read little till about AGE 10, then I jumped into Dr. Doolittle.
Reader,
Volunteering to read various books to children is a bit different than an author reading their own book and selling to school.
"By what process had he acquired this gig? We're suddenly in the middle of things. "
Follow the money. All of it.
So, what if the book with a very VERY similar message was offered by an author frequently associated with Christians whose work is prominent in Christian bookstores, even though the book itself invents a setting as fantastic and fictional as one including unicorns?
https://www.amazon.com/You-Are-Special-Lucados-Wemmicks/dp/0891079319
Be yourself. Don't allow others to categorize you, or stigmatize you, or carry a grudge over your past mistakes. And do not categorize, stigmatize, or seek revenge on others.
So -- may the public taxpayer-funded school spend $ 6,130 at Amazon to give all the elementary grade students a copy of *You Are Special* ?
"Now, I do see the problem: A scheduled event was was cancelled. But we can't understand the full story unless we know why this book was chosen."
According to the Hill, the event was not cancelled:
He told the CBS affiliate he ended up doing the presentation and excluding both books, saying he was disappointed.
(The other book was It's Okay to Smell Good.)
"Often kids' books do this. Everyone's an idiot or worse, but the kid is resourceful and prevails. "
In third grade my favorite book was Roald Dahl's "James and the Giant Peach." A story of a child who escaped the home of his evil aunts to go on a hero quest with nice anthropomorphic insects and animals. A great book, and after I read it, I did not hate my nice aunts.
I think if you taught a lot of first graders about sex and being gay you would get more boys looking under girls skirts and more boys getting beat up for coming on to other boys. Not saying if that's good or bad intrinsically.
In Norway girls and boys play together nude as children and it seems to work out (its supposed to be natural). This will be next for the US, nude grade school as a social good.
"Those words mock the parents' desire to control the education of their children by making them sound ignorant, worrying that an adult can cause a child to "become gay.""
So conversion therapy is no biggie. Right?
"Am I the only one alive that thinks we should be teaching kids a more generic "be nice and respectful to everyone even those you don't understand very well" philosophy, instead of this attempt to focus on the marginalized group of the day?"
And to be suitably woke, you have to continually search for groups that are even farther and farther out there. Sometimes you even have to breed them yourself. I shudder at what may come next. And the funny thing is that progressives call this progress.
what is missing in the discussion of pushing sexuality on young kids in the name of tolerance: That it pushes a philosophy that goes against the ideas of tradition: Not just the Christian one, but that of Confucian ethics: that posit the importance of the family, that assumes and assumes that one's gender is the basis for the family ties.
In effect, they are pushing a new "religion" that makes those of us who are Asians, Hispanics, and Christians whose cultures revere family ties, the enemy.
"I can rememeber peanuts, Dr. Seuss, and maybe some others, but I basically read little till about AGE 10, then I jumped into Dr. Doolittle."
I was reading "Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea", but that was a half a century ago.
"Also, now that I've looked closely at the photo, I see the kids have all made headbands with an upright horn. They're all being a unicorn."
They were assigned human at birth, so they're all transicorns. Unsure if that's to be celebrated or cultural appropriation; I'll need direction on this before I can let my child near an upright horn.
>> This is the first time I have seen -- or at least noticed -- the word medias in that Latin expression
In terms of Latin grammar, "medias" is the only possible correct choice. For "media" to work, the expression would need to be "in media re," an ablative singular construction. The "res" tells you the phrase is instead a plural accusative construction, requiring an accusative plural adjective. That means, inter alia(!), that motion is implied, as opposed to merely being located somewhere. So, the most accurate translation would be something like "into the jmiddle of things."
Do I know what "medias res" is?
See above. The term was used to refer to works such as the Iliad and the Odyssey (and the ripoff Aeneid), which start "in the middle of things" (or, probably better, where the hearer is thrust "into the middle of things" at the start), with the back story being told later in the form of flashbacks and the like.
--gpm
Ann, I was curious about your unicorns tag, I see that back in 2009 you were hit with a unicorn at a laundromat! lol. You can tell by the comments in that post how things have changed. No one thought anything of a child playing with a unicorn. *sigh*
This Person said...
"Those words mock the parents' desire to control the education of their children by making them sound ignorant, worrying that an adult can cause a child to "become gay.""
So conversion therapy is no biggie. Right?
********
Conversion therapy requires use of force and coercion.
When has conversion therapy been inflicted on elementary students? When has a school inflicted conversion therapy on any student? You're comparing apples with kumquats.
***************
Did anyone notice that the article didn't say which grades in that elementary school would be getting the presentation?
Has anyone established whether the author is himself gay? If so, he's being more than disingenuous---he's engaging in propaganda. Best to plant the seeds of doubt and confusion when the kids are young....right?
Finally, that nonsense about reaching "just one kid" is pure bullshit. It's every bit as dishonest as Fauci's persistent claims that his policies were worth it "if they save even one life".
That's not a metric----that's pious virtue-signaling.
Is the woke press going to get involved in every contretemps between school staff and administrators? Whether hearing somebody read a book about a unicorn who thinks he/she/it wants to be a horse is a worthwhile use of pupils' time isn't something I could even begin to adjudicate. If it's not at this school it is at another one. No harm. No foul.
Because maybe "It's Okay to Be a Unicorn" by Jason Tharp just sucks.
I think the problem lies in adults who have a personal message or agenda that they want to impart to kids instead of writing a book for children. Are there some kids in the age range of 3 to 6 "wanting to fit in" as the author of "It's Okay to Be a Unicorn" claims? Maybe but having dealt with kids in that age range . . . probably not. I think to many adults like to justify their own emotional issue of today by claiming it goes as far back as preschool years.
A children's book written for about the same age range and with as many pages is Maurice Sendak's "Where The Wild Things Are." But I suspect the actual word count is vastly different between the two books, with Sendak's telling a simple story and allowing a child to fill in details with their minds and Tharp's wanting to show the world how clever Tharp is (one review of Tharp's book states "The alternative vocabulary used in this book had me laughing out loud (i.e. DJ Salad for DJ Khalid)" - if you are relying on current pop culture for your story, may I say you haven't written a "classic").
Because maybe "It's Okay to Be a Unicorn" by Jason Tharp just sucks.
I think the problem lies in adults who have a personal message or agenda that they want to impart to kids instead of writing a book for children. Are there some kids in the age range of 3 to 6 "wanting to fit in" as the author of "It's Okay to Be a Unicorn" claims? Maybe but having dealt with kids in that age range . . . probably not. I think to many adults like to justify their own emotional issue of today by claiming it goes as far back as preschool years.
A children's book written for about the same age range and with as many pages is Maurice Sendak's "Where The Wild Things Are." But I suspect the actual word count is vastly different between the two books, with Sendak's telling a simple story and allowing a child to fill in details with their minds and Tharp's wanting to show the world how clever Tharp is (one review of Tharp's book states "The alternative vocabulary used in this book had me laughing out loud (i.e. DJ Salad for DJ Khalid)" - if you are relying on current pop culture for your story, may I say you haven't written a "classic").
if school is for teaching why unique-horn is always mis-spell as unicorn!!!???
The unicorn's name is Sparklesteed. He is famous for wearing odd hats that cover his horn, so he passes to other horses. One day he removes his hat and comes out to the other horses, who are prejudiced at first.
It retails at more than $25 a book. That's $12,500 for the school to spend just on just one book, unless they got a discount. But multicultural educational book companies usually charge school districts more than retail for books, not less. It's a truly filthy and corrupt industry, one that merits exposure.
Did he also get paid to read it?
So it's clearly a gay coming out book. A male gay coming out book with the central metaphor being obviously phallic.
Why not teach children the history of the unicorn ( which has its share of phallic implications but also implications about pure love and Christian and other faiths)? It's a very old symbol for purity, first as a symbol of immortality, then often a symbol of Christ. It was also said to perform miracles and could only be caught and tamed by virginal women.
Now we reduce this beautiful story to a dumb coming out scolding. Sounds like it's more about denouncing people who are not different.
Gpm- thank you!
Post a Comment