I"m curious: What do you understand glorify to mean? How does Huck Finn glorify racism?
I think Teek is referring to the books that her daughter was asked to read vi a vis sexual content, not Huck Finn.
Okay. My question is basically the same: What do you understand glorify to mean? How do these books glorify sex?
A Tree Grows In Brooklyn has sexual elements, but there’s nothing vulgar or nasty in Betty Smith’s treatment. She wrote about the real lives of the poor–it was compassionately written, but fairly frank for the time in was published.
I’m glad you had a constructive conversation with the teacher. And that you were able to make her see that objections to explicit books do not necessarily all mean the parent objecting is a book-burning fundie.
I completely agree that Hick Finn advocates for the opposite of the “racially insensitive content.” That is why I disagree with the analogy above. These books glorify the subject of the worry, UNLIKE Huck Finn, which advocates for the opposite of the worry.
In this instance I used the word “glorify” as a verb to convey that the books take something that is negative and portray it as a positive entity.
The Highest Tide. A teenage boy mastrubates while envisioning an adult babysitter he admires. The book presents this as a form of love for the woman. It is objectification of the woman. And after reading it, my daughter asked me what a “g-spot” is. Because it is discussed in more than one place in the book.
In Cold Blood. It has several instances of encounters with prostitutes. It has two instances where children watch their mother having sexual encounters with strange men. It has a major sexual molestation by an adult woman perpetrated on a young boy. It has a homosexual serial gang rape perpetrated on a minor. It has an adult man who molests and rapes children. It presents these things often in a neutral tone. It is desensitizing.
A Million Little Pieces. This one I have not read. And I won’t, because I looked it up and found a review that explains it. The reported enjoyment of the guy explaining the event glorifies the event.
Someone else in the thread my have discussed A Tree Grows in Brooklyn. I have never read it, and it was not a part of my daughter’s class. I was not referring to it in any of my comments.
Yes, I was replying to TheLittleLady’s comment.
But I still recommend the book!
I think the original poster probably needs to home school her daughter and then see that she attends a very traditional, conservative Catholic or christian college to avoid literature, film and other creative art forms that incorporate sexuality in its work. Better yet, she probably should severely limit (censor) her daughter’s exposure to books, the arts and humanities, and education.
That doesn’t seem necessary to me.
This book probably wouldn’t be appropriate for the those concerned with sexual content in literature. The subject matter could be considered indecent and not appropriate for those under the age of 21
Is this what in other places would be called Year 10 in a school system of 13 years comprising Kindergarten then Year 1 to Year 12?
Yes, sophomore is year 10, the students are usually 15 or 16 years old.
Thanks. I share to some degree Teek’s dismay at the content of some of the books prescribed (see her descriptions above). And I reject the proposition that to hold that view is indicative of a “need” to homeschool. Perhaps the educational authorities have simply erred in including these books in a list of quality literature?
It feels like you’re mocking OP. There’s a world of difference between the content of the Scarlet Letter and the sexually explicit material in the books the OP is concerned about. OP doesn’t seem at all interested in shielding her daughter from all difficult or unpleasant or even sexual topics. She just doesn’t want her daughter exposed to what essentially amounts to written pornography.
Your last sentence highlights the issue.
America is a funny place when it comes to education.
In the end, it’s not “educational authorities” who decide things but individual teachers…especially in public schools and ESPECIALLY at the high school level.
My friend just became a science teacher at a Catholic school. Other than the AP classes she is allowed to pick–and doesn’t have to justify–any book that she deems appropriate. She is a science professional and has higher ed degrees but is permitted to teach without any classroom training. She’s not in a union so she answers only to her supervisor. She has the lesson plans of previous teachers and she has some minor guidelines, but it’s all up to her.
This is why changing schools is so traumatic for American children…even going across town can mean entirely different curricula in every subject. Some states have districts that lay down firmer rules, but in general, the teacher’s unions have made it so that teacher autonomy is paramount and every classroom will have different ways to meet the standards.
Seriously? Where I live, the educational authority for the State sets the curriculum, and in English this includes prescribing a set of books that may be studied - the teacher chooses from that list. Well…that’s how it used to be. I can’t imagine that giving carte-Blanche to teachers is a superior approach.
Some states do have lists…but most of those lists not only contain thousands and thousands of books but also give teachers leeway to teach “as needed” or "as appropriate for current student needs.
No, not at all. In reading this thread (and others), I feel there are many catholics who are rightly concerned about what secular and atheist educators are offering to their kids in our public schools and colleges. I agree these parents have a right to protect their children from what they perceive as filthy and perverted literature and art (and also misinformed science) that is not in alignment with Church teachings. The wearing of the letter “A” in The Scarlet Letter represents a grave sexual sin and may not be a topic that Christian parents want their teenagers exposed to.