- cross-posted to:
- news@lemmy.world
You must log in or register to comment.
At a public library, that’s ridiculous. A 10 year old isn’t driving to the library, his parent or legal guardian is taking him. It’s a bit different in a public school library.
Do kids not have bicycles where you live? Feet?
I was a half dozen of miles away from My home at any given time….
My sister (who was like my second mom and spoke English, unlike my parents) would ask me about what I was reading. It helps to take a little interest in your kids too.
At that age I could walk to the library. I grew up in a big city and didn’t require a parent-chauffeur. (A good thing to, since my mother can’t drive.)
Eh, I was using the bus to get to my town’s local library when I was 9 years old. Granted that was a number of decades ago but the idea that a 10yo can’t navigate a bus or just be close enough to walk is a little silly. (Edit: Not to imply I think that’s a reason why we need to be overly concerned about what’s age appropriate beyond laws relating to actual porn, mind.)
Yeah it’s simple- who decides? The parent or guardian. If you don’t like a book for your child help them chose another
The average age of everyone in the pictures of the book banners has to be 70 or higher.
Lovely to see the only books these parents have problems with largely are focused on LGBTQ+ and non-white stories… /s
If you don’t want your child reading a particular book…don’t let them…why is this so hard?
I am against book banning bu6 I don’t want a 10 year old access to a ton of damaging content.
The internet is bad enough, this is a hard nut to Crack but worthy of conversation.
this is a hard nut to Crack but worthy of conversation.
No, it really isn’t. There’s quite a simple solution that has been known for centuries.
Be an actual parent to your children.
You don’t want your kid reading a book? Fine; don’t let them. Don’t force your bullshit on others.
Ahh yes the common refrain blame the parents.
Man this argument gets so old it’s always the parents fault like parents are some omnipotent omniscient force able to curate a child’s life like clipping a bonsai.
Ahh yes the common refrain blame the parents.
No; it’s not blame. It’s expecting parents to be parents. If you’re not responsible enough to monitor what your kids are reading/watching, then you’re not responsible enough to be a parent.
Man this argument gets so old it’s always the parents fault like parents are some omnipotent omniscient force able to curate a child’s life like clipping a bonsai.
It’s not difficult to keep an eye on what your child is reading. You’re running them back and forth to the library already; take 5 fucking seconds and look at what they’re choosing.
But heaven forbid a parent actually be a parent and show any interest in their childs lives.
The question is what constitutes “damaging content”?
That is the question there are absolutely vile things that have been put into print.
Whether it gets said or not, the vast majority of the time people talking about “age appropriateness” in books are against books that include critical discussion of racism/slavery/homophobia/transphobia/misogyny, or take an inclusive perspective on gender identity, unorthodox gender presentation, non-heterosexual sexuality, non-heterosexual families, and women’s rights.
The question that never seems to get asked in any of this “censorship/ban” conversation: Why are authors of YA and child books writing books with such controversial content? Should they? And why are the publishers encouraging them?
This never used to be a problem because both authors and publishers just knew better than to “go there.” Now, it’s like a race to go there. Whatever restraint existed has been blown up, and it has left parents scrambling to hold back the flood when the authors and publishers used be the gatekeepers.
Why are authors of YA and child books writing books with such controversial content?
A better question would be to ask what makes them controversial according to some in the first place. YA means a young adult, so a teenager to someone in their early twenties. As such, YA books will naturally have content in them which said demographic finds relatable, including, you guessed it, sex (which in turn makes them "controversial)! This is only controversial because a loud group of people wish to be a moral police.
Should they?
Yes.
Why are the publishers encouraging them?
Publishers encourage authors to write books which make them money.
This never used to be a problem because both authors and publishers just knew better than to “go there
This part is just not true. In the US there have been moral outcries over literature targeted for kids or teenagers since mass publishing came into relevancy.
Why are authors of YA and child books writing books with such controversial content?
In large part because something being controversial says very little about whether or not it is suitable for children. For example, books about gay or transgender people are often considered to be controversial and plenty of people argue that such books are not suitable for children. But why? Gay and transgender people exist. Reading a book about it isn’t going to turn someone gay or transgender. Similarly, books that involve romance and and even cut to black sex scenes are common enough in the YA space and rarely controversial until the people involved are queer. In effect, this controversy is controversial because the people who don’t think this kind of thing is a problem don’t understand why someone else thinks that it is.
And on the other side of the controversy is people who recognize things such as gay and transgender people actually exist and that they, like literally everyone else on the planet, like to read stuff featuring characters who are similar to them! A transgender kid worried that they’ll never find a romantic partner is going to want a bit of escapist YA reading for exactly the same reason that countless other kids who have no idea how to go about the whole romance thing. A gay kid will want to read stories set in a word where things work out for a gay kid. For that matter, more than a few queer kids might unexpectedly find themselves in reading a book, potentially skipping over a great deal of very dangerous, heartbreaking work that is so often required. And these people generally recognize that, sure, some parent might have a reason to disagree and begrudgingly admit that said parent has a right to do so, but why would that right extend to anyone else’s kids? After all, if such a book were banned, you’re right back at the same problem only now the roles are reversed.
Who is really helped by this? Certainly not the queer kids, or the other children who might read such a book and realize that queer people are just people.
Right? Back in Mark Twain’s day authors and publishers knew their place.
(Hint: This isn’t new. You just hear about it more easily these days.)
By “controversial content”, do you mean the existence of queer and trans people in the world and an inclusive narrative?
Ah yes,
“We’re not asking for anything unreasonable,” says Lewis County Commissioner Sean Swope, who proposed the plan. “This is a tool to provide parents to be able to tell whether this is appropriate book for your child. I mean, that innocence, once it’s gone, it’s gone.”
This dude can get bent. I think it’s unreasonable that children were shot down the street from my kid’s school. What about that innocence? I had to explain to my daughter that people could come and hurt her in her school.
Meanwhile this same goon says:
Now, first-term commissioner Sean Swope has re-ignited the push, at the request of Sheriff Rob Snaza. While Commissioner Lindsey Pollock has thrown support behind a resolution acknowledging the importance of the whole constitution, Swope this week insisted that the first and second amendments need to be the focus.
So which is it Sean Swope? Tthe right to free speech (and information) or not? They’d prefer our kids get shot in schools than come across a book that might cause a difficult conversation later.
The issue with letting the community have a free for all to come decide what a 13 year old should be reading is that these are the people who show up to such meetings of the mind. Pic from the article, which some of you haven’t read. I don’t think busybody boomers on a (usually faith based) moral purity mission should be the ones curating the selection in a public library, period.
From the mouth of Mitch Hedberg “all books are children’s books if the kid can read!”
Joke aside I agree: if someone can actually read a book (and has the desire to) they’re likely old enough to read it.
While librarians do usually determine what is age appropriate, parents can over ride that. When I was 5yo my Dad and I would go to the library on Saturdays. One day I could not find any book I had not read in the children’s section and went to the older kids area but the librarian said I was too young. Went to my Dad to complain. He took me back to the librarian and said that I had his permission to read any book I wanted and he would monitor what I was reading - and put that in writing! Bless you Dad!
Dumbest shit ever.
Libraries determine what is available.
People determine what they check out.
Another mom, Natasha Stringam, recalls how her 12-year-old son recently came across a book “about a boy kissing another boy and things that really aren’t appropriate at that stage of development for children,” she says.
If your 12 year old can’t handle kissing, you have failed them as a parent. But I think we all know what her actual issue is…
Her son must have never seen a single Disney cartoon in his life if she considers kissing to be more than he can handle!
The funny thing about “Parents Against Bad Books” is that not a single member is young enough to have a minor child.
Every book is a children’s book if the kid can read
I think this is a targeted nonsense to distract people on a local level from actual serious political issues like crumbling infrastructure, multiple direct threats to democracy, the rise of fascism, and the acceleration of the decline of our material conditions.
I think this book stuff specifically is probably mostly far right astroturfing and then some local groups feeling emboldened by that. Literally never seen this level of local political action in my lifetime, across locations.
I think this is a targeted nonsense to distract people on a local level from actual serious political issues like…the rise of fascism
Aggressive censorship of material not conforming to a specific sociopolitical agenda sounds pretty much like fascism, eh?
Agreed. If these people actually cared about the innocence of their children they wouldn’t be focusing on libraries.
I’d take an uncomfortable conversation with my daughter about a passage in a book over having to explain why parents aren’t allowed to come in to the school anymore during pickup.
Interesting take. Not sure what your point is. But what books are in what libraries is largely irrelevant given
Librarians and other library professionals.
Have to agree. While parents choosing sounds nice this parent is freaking out over a book about boys kissing in 2023 so that parent probably shouldn’t be choosing…
