quote: (And yeah, Porter, I don't think anyone here is requiring that you submit to graphic sex for the good of the country. You're perfectly wellcome to stick to stories where the sex happens off-camera. The only cost is that you miss out on stories that might have otherwise been good.)
I'm perfectly OK with that. I can't see/read every story.
posted
Mine has only the scarf, but in deference to the average nausea level of humanity the scarf is 200' x 20' and wraps around me until my entire body resembles a large bean bag chair.
I'm willing to defend graphic sex in a general manner, but some things are just too horrible to be seen. Someone has to think of the children.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
Porter is correct. "Includes but is not limited to" would have been the correct translation. Unless I was baking an apple pie, of course.
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Note that I'm skillfully ducking the question of whether or not my body resembles a large bean bag chair even before the scarf.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
ANYWAY... found surprisingly few reviews online for "Ricochet River" but what I found was mostly positive. Coming of age novel set in the Pacific Northwest in the 60's, talks about growing up there, the pressures of being a teenager in a logging town, and how local Indians were treated.
Again, I haven't read it so I have no clue about the quality of the book or its appropriateness for teenagers. I do think that books with potentially objectionable content should be limited to optional lists instead of being mandatory.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I actually have a beef with violence. God didn't flood the earth due to porn, he flooded it due to violence. And at least in LDS doctrine, adultery can be forgiven where murder of the innocent cannot. (Though of course only God really knows what constitutes that... I play it safe and don't murder during lent.)
P.S. I didn't read the excerpts. I don't figure it would be being discussed if only hopeless prudes like myself would find it porn.
[ January 07, 2005, 05:30 PM: Message edited by: Trisha the Severe Hottie ]
Posts: 666 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
This reminds me of a thread on greNME where we discussed why it is or is not appropriate for schools to deal with religious belief systems. The concern is that if a school does anything with a belief system (like putting songs that deal with Christ in the Christmas Choir Concert) would be like a school endorsing that religion and that would be "wrong", rather than celebrating the religious beliefs shared by a large portion of the population.
But it is OK for schools to endorse these other ideologies that so many people find offensive and don't want their kids exposed to.
I think including only ideologies that have to do with God under keeping church and state separate is unfair for reasons like this. We can keep God out of schools, but we can't keep pornography out.
I realize that it is a lot easier to draw a line between "God or no God" and "pornography or no pornography". People are far more likely to disagree on the defining of the second. That is why being allowed to read a different book is a good policy.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
One difference would be that the book would be more likely to be up for critical review. Songs usually aren't, nor are displays. There is tacit approval of sponsored events unless criticique is explicitly invited.
I think that is what makes comparative religion classes a different ball of wax, too.
That being said, I don't think this book should have been assigned to a high school class. I don't have a problem with a teenager being able to find it in a library or on a reading list, but assigning it to a roomful of teenagers to discuss with each other means deliberate destruction of some boundaries I think those kids should be able to decide for themselves to keep in place.
Different for college, though, as you can choose whether or not to drop the class.
[ January 07, 2005, 05:58 PM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read some of the excerpts (I only partway down before I had to flee), and while I admit that I am a prude, I will add that if any child or niece/nephew or child of anyone else whom I loved had to read that pornographic crap as a school assignment before they reached the age of adulthood, I would raise a huge stinkin' fuss. It isn't appropriate reading for a lot of adults, so how could it be considered appropriate reading for children?
There is a LOT of good literature available that does not have that kind of language in it. Why is this so necessary? For shock value?
I had an English teacher in high school who brought in a movie to show us - A Clockwork Orange. I was 16, grade 11, and I walked out after about 5 minutes. I was terrified that my teacher would fail me on that section, but I could not stay. It was far too disturbing.
In the next twenty minutes, over half of the rest of the class followed me in walking out.
The next day, our teacher said that the assignment had been changed to optional for those who wished to do it, but those of us who didn't stay wouldn't be penalized. That was a reasonable result. It would have been better, though, had he informed us ahead of time what the movie was about and given us the choice before it started of staying or leaving. I would have chosen to not see any of it. It's still stuck in my brain. I wish it wasn't.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:One difference would be that the book would be more likely to be up for critical review. Songs usually aren't, nor are displays. There is tacit approval of sponsored events unless criticique is explicitly invited.
This is an important difference that is often overlooked.
Here, on this board, we have critical discussions and analyze concepts. Even with the sensitivity of the members and the shared history, there still are some questions which clearly should not be asked because they are considered disrespectful to deeply held religious beliefs of some involved.
That doesn't bother me. This forum is not set up for a critical discussion of religious beliefs (and by critical, I mean analytical -- neither necessarily negative or positive, but exploratory). Actually, it is explicitly set up not to be such a site -- it is a part of the terms of service.
And, I am quite certain, most religious persons do not come here in order to have their most important and deeply held beliefs set up for critical review. This is why such discussions are explicitly constrained under the TOS.
On the other hand, education is (or should be) about learning how to ask hard questions, look for hidden assumptions, test for logical consistency and usefulness of theories in various contexts, and challenge the status quo. In effect, each topic should be set up as something to be analyzed, once students are able to participate.
- Why do people believe this (or accept this)? - Is there good reason for everyone to believe this? - Is it useful? Is it self-consistent? - What are the consequences of this? What else would follow? - How does this fit in with the other things you have been taught or have concerns about?
The Grapes of Wrath as a work of literature, Freudian psychology, the medicalization of mental health, Barbara Tuchman's analysis of the Holy Roman Empire, and even such things as integrals, differentials, and the Bohr model of the atom.
Of course, there isn't time to analyze everything in exhaustive detail. But no questions themselves should be off limits, in theory. Questions can be asked in a respectful or disrespectful way, but part of the educational process is the openness to holding up a concern and seeing if it flies on its own merits.
You just can't do that with some religious beliefs, not in our culture. I understand why and I respect that, but I think that is what makes some things inappropriate for public classroom topics. Mind you, I would have no problem with comparative religion classes in high school (in theory), but (in practice) it would have to mean that any questions could be asked, as long as they are asked in a respectful manner. The manner of asking the question must be respectful, but not necessarily the content of a question. I'm not sure that is workable at a level of comfort for everyone involved.
[ January 08, 2005, 07:02 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: I don't have a problem with a teenager being able to find it in a library or on a reading list, but assigning it to a roomful of teenagers to discuss with each other means deliberate destruction of some boundaries I think those kids should be able to decide for themselves to keep in place.
This is all I would ask for from a school district: the freedom to decide for myself if I wanted to read that or not. Our district is arguing the necessity of "warning" students about content like this and those that are against it cry "But where is the line drawn?" That is a good question. I'd like to make sure that a child of mine had some say in drawing that line. Because if they do not...
quote: It would have been better, though, had he informed us ahead of time what the movie was about and given us the choice before it started of staying or leaving. I would have chosen to not see any of it. It's still stuck in my brain. I wish it wasn't.
I feel the same way about these particular excerpts. I really wish I hadn't read them. I think it's too late when the student reads and then has to say "I wish I hadn't read that."
Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is all I would ask for from a school district: the freedom to decide for myself if I wanted to read that or not. Our district is arguing the necessity of "warning" students about content like this and those that are against it cry "But where is the line drawn?" That is a good question. I'd like to make sure that a child of mine had some say in drawing that line. Because if they do not...
If I could a) satisfactorily define porn or b) satisfactorily define where such lines should be drawn, I'd be a heckuva lot more powerful than I am. *grin
A major problem with porn as a required classroom reading assignment is that one has to do something which one might not wish others to know that one had done. (I know this isn't a good way to phrase it, but I'm more trying to sketch the point rather than make it in a decisive manner. It's the best I can do.) Whether or not one has considered a given political philosophy, or a particular way to find the surface area of a square, or the distinction between a simile and a metaphor -- these aren't generally highly emotionally charged, personal identity sorts of issues. Well, I suppose political philosophies may be, but these are an accepted topic of public discourse. You can pretty much assume that everyone in the US has heard of the Democratic and the Republican party, and just knowing about them isn't a standard source of shame or self-doubt.
Sex is. Porn is. In this culture, it is a very different sort of thing. Given that context, I think it is counter-productive and cruel to force young people to deal with a subject we know may be traumatic or highly personally unsettling for them. For similar reasons, I don't think comparative religions should be a required course in public school. What discussion there is of sex should be kept as clinical and informative as possible, as there is a need to educate in this matter, but one's personal reaction to that information (and porn is about personal reactions) should be permitted to be a matter of solely private information.
Lines blur, of course. Is there enough sex in The Grapes of Wrath that it should not be assigned? I think that, in context, the sex that is there makes sense for the story, and the level of detail is something I think is not inappropriate for high schoolers to read as a class. I don't think it is at a level where a standard reasonable person (how sweet the hypothetical ) might suffer undue shame or embarrasment at having to admit awareness of it. For Ricochet River, at least from the parts I saw excerpted, I do not think that is the case. Some of these were long, extended scenes, and it wasn't a matter of being able to quickly skip over anything that might be offensive to you. It went on and on and on.
In such a case, I think it should be the option of young men and women to keep private whether they are or are not interesting or willing to engage in such a text. Mind you, I think there are a lot of good reasons for and good things that can come from porn, but none of them come from being forced to engage with it.
Again, I'm not going to satisfactorily define porn. I'm trying to sketch out my thoughts, that's all -- although feedback and comments are welcome.
[ January 08, 2005, 06:41 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: In such a case, I think it should be the option of young men and women to keep private whether they are or are not interesting or willing to engage in such a text. Mind you, I think there are a lot of good reasons for and good things that can come from porn, but none of them come from being forced to engage with it.
Bingo. I totally agree with you on that last sentence. The porn thing is another issue, but we won't go into that.
But I was interested to read that you think it should be private whether or not a student chooses to read stuff like that. So, are you saying, like Tom did, that the choice to opt out isn't good enough and that the whole class should just read a different sort of book? (sorry, I'm probably just getting hung up on logistics.)
I agree with you that the choice should be a private thing. Kids shouldn't be made to feel bad about themselves by their peers because they've chosen TO read it. I'm just trying to figure out how the privacy issue could be approached in a classroom and carried out successfully without just yanking that book and books like it from the curriculum.
Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would not put it in terms of either "read X" or "opt out and read Y." That really puts the pressure on.
I think a better way to handle it would be to present a list of options, say 3-5, which ranged in content and focus. Include a brief snippet on each with any appropriate cautions, just as a summary for a television show in TV Guide. With a few more options, the choice is less forced and less a focus of scrutiny. Any classroom discussion of the more explicit texts can be limited to the drier, more analytic review of the writing in a broader sense.
However, if the teacher wishes to teach from only one text (say, to narrow down the topics of discussion or something), then something should be chosen which cannot reasonably be expected to be unduly cruel or fundamentally upsetting to any of the participants. Challenge them, make them think, yes. Humiliate them (regardless of whether you yourself would be humiliated), no.
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
I never would have thought to use "humiliate" in this case, but you're exactly right. That's what it is doing to those that are forced to read, those that opt out, and those that openly choose to read.
I like your idea of a reading list with content summary. They even do that for MOVIES now (to some extent, but it still makes a difference). They should be willing to do it for material presented in a public school.
So now my question is, why don't these options make sense to the teachers in this school district? I wish I knew.
Posts: 6415 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
As to why it doesn't work this way, I honestly don't know. A part of me thinks that many people just like to make things difficult so they have something to get worked up about, rather than deal with things in the calmest, most efficient, and most sensible way possible. But then again, I've gotten pretty cynical about these sorts of things.
I certainly agree with Farmgirl that it sounds like the last meeting over this topic was moderated in a stellar manner. I hope all involved can extend the same level of courtesy and maturity to the classroom itself.
[ January 08, 2005, 07:13 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can testify that (at least from my perspective), it's also an Indiana thing, an Illinois thing, a Wisconsin thing, and an Alabama thing. (all places where I've lived) After having travelled outside the country a little bit, I'm coming to think it's partly an American thing.
Not that I don't admire this country -- just that things like this (and the popularity of Crossfire, etc.) seem to point towards a relatively recent social trend here. I'm sure the pendulum will swing back, though. Be nice if it happened sooner rather than later. Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Going back to the humiliation thing. I certainly felt humiliated by watching that movie, and I felt humiliated as I walked out of the room. Thing you need to understand is that back then, I did not make a habit of sticking up for myself. I had zero self esteem. So for me to actually walk out of that room that day took every single ounce of personal strength that I had. And for those other kids who walked out, every single one of them thanked me after for being the first one to walk out. Every single one of them said that, if I had not walked out first, none of them would have had the nerve to walk out either.
Humiliation? Shame? Something like that. Yeah, it's huge. And yes, it needs to be considered. Peer pressure, folks. I was lucky - I was in an honors class with the same 28 students I had all my other classes with in a school of 1700. If it had been a regular classroom where I knew almost no one and had no friends? I doubt the outcome would have been the same.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
I'm all about encouraging questions and fostering critical analysis. I even think it's good to have one's preconceptions challenged on a regular basis. That's one of the reasons I am here.
This is different. The emotional reaction of some who are put in the situation where they have to react to it (and are judged on that reaction) just goes too deep. It goes past the teachable moment for some, I think. I may not have the same reaction -- at least, not at this point in my life -- but I can certainly understand and respect it.
*grin
I admit to trusting that natural curiosity will lead many young people to explore this on their own, so long as the materials are in some way accessible. But that is under their own control, and I think that is the sort of situation in which any benefits have a real chance to occur.
Provide accurate information about things which put one at risk and the tools one needs to function in the world. Provide privacy where appropriate. Set up no idols in the form of forbidden fruit. Don't traumatize in any real sense of the word. Just ... don't make things worse.
[ January 08, 2005, 09:17 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But when you're talking about teenagers in a high school setting, statistically enough of them will have been abused or raped, or come from violent homes, or otherwise been damaged traumatically. Those ones will have a far more difficult time standing up for themselves. The lesson about critical thinking could easily be missed by them, and could just result in more trauma. Unless they've already worked through their past trauma, which, from what I've read, is unlikely. Doesn't usually happen until they become adults and have control over their lives and their healing.
Unfortunately, if their parents are the ones doing the abusing, the parents are probably less likely to stick up for the kids.
Goes back to not doing more damage.
Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
I think one's willingness or not to read sexually explicit and prolonged graphic (jimminy cricket, it went on and on) reading material is not an appropriate focus of a required class's attention. Like you, I think there is potential for a lot of unnecessary distress without a balancing significant gain.
Having it available doesn't press the point. Assigning it, or even offering just one alternative option, does. Different matter.
[ January 08, 2005, 09:36 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, Sara, I already knew I wasn't disagreeing with you. Just fleshing out the idea in more detail. Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I felt so bad after reading your description of your experience. You were very brave.
My brother and I were allowed to watch PBS and occasionally the local news but pretty much no other television. (This was before the days of VCRs, too.) However, one evening while my mother was working in the garden and my father was napping, something very odd came on PBS. Yes, A Clockwork Orange.
I was around four or five, and my brother was eight. He still says it warped his view of sex (though he's rather tongue-in-cheek about it). I wouldn't say it scarred me, but it did make me both rather nervous about sex and suspicious that the whole thing was a big joke. I just really couldn't conceive of my Uncle Jack chasing around Aunt Emily and batting her with a giant sculpture of a phallus. I became quite skeptical for many years.
However, I would have been mortified (red-faced, shaking, angry, humiliated, terrified) if I'd had to watch it, or even had to discuss whether or not I had or would watch it in front of a group of my peers. As it was, it wasn't so much traumatizing as curious and bizzare -- but that was because I was just peeking every now and then, in between doing some garden project and making bread pills or something.
[ January 08, 2005, 09:53 AM: Message edited by: Sara Sasse ]
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My mother made my sister and I watch The Holocaust, a movie or documentary, I'm not sure which, about Jews being exterminated. It was graphic, complete with heads rolling or gas chamber footage or the like. I was five. And I knew that it really happened - she made sure we knew that.
When I was six, my mother made us watch Sybil.
She thought she was educating us. I say she was being extremely inappropriate.
I had nightmares from both for years. Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
(Ghamorra, Gamorah?)![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
But then again, I've gotten pretty cynical about these sorts of things.![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
