# Anne Frank's Diary in US schools censorship battle



## Guest (May 7, 2013)

The Community Forum is supposed to be a place for the 'less serious' and so on. The link I post hereafter is hardly a fun topic, but I can see no other place to post it as it does not relate to classical music.
Here is the link to an article in the UK newspaper _The Guardian_ about perceived 'pornographic content' in the diary of Anne Frank, and calls for its banning in the USA. Thoughts?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/may/07/anne-frank-diary-us-schools-censorship


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

TalkingHead said:


> The Community Forum is supposed to be a place for the 'less serious' and so on. The link I post hereafter is hardly a fun topic, but I can see no other place to post it as it does not relate to classical music.
> Here is the link to an article in the UK newspaper _The Guardian_ about perceived 'pornographic content' in the diary of Anne Frank, and calls for its banning in the USA. Thoughts?
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2013/may/07/anne-frank-diary-us-schools-censorship


Typical nonsense and what to expect from the type of person who teaches their children to be ashamed of their bodies.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

In a word: preposterous. In two words: absolutely preposterous.


----------



## EricABQ (Jul 10, 2012)

This isn't surprising at all. There is a vocal movement of fundamentalists who are terrified of female sexuality. Quite a pathetic group of people, and when they get control of school boards they can do real damage (see Abstinence Only Sex Ed for example.)


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

> This isn't surprising at all. There is a vocal movement of fundamentalists who are terrified of female sexuality. Quite a pathetic group of people, and when they get control of school boards they can do real damage (see Abstinence Only Sex Ed for example.)


Well, abstinence is indeed the only sure way to prevent all those diseases, no?


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

It's hardly new. Various US educational institutions (schools, libraries) have been banning books for stupid reasons for decades. My high school library actually participated in the ALA's banned books week, and the library aides were assigned to read a book off of an extensive list of banned books and prepare a report on the book, why it was banned, and why it shouldn't have been banned.


----------



## EricABQ (Jul 10, 2012)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Well, abstinence is indeed the only sure way to prevent all those diseases, no?


With these people it's not just about preventing disease. It's about teaching girls that their entire worth is tied up in their "purity." The effects this has on the psyche of young girls is damaging.


----------



## Crudblud (Dec 29, 2011)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Well, abstinence is indeed the only sure way to prevent all those diseases, no?


Teaching young people to be afraid of sex just creates a lot of sexually maladjusted young people.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

And besides, I have never read the Diary of Anne Frank, so I can't say anything about it's contents, but I can think of books that are definitely not meant for schoolchildren. Now, in case one of such books (some sort of pornography or extreme graphic violence, for example) had indeed made its way into schools, and concerned parents did call for it to be banned, would you say it is a bad thing, and would you say parents who don't want their children to have nightmares are in the wrong?


----------



## quack (Oct 13, 2011)

Do any parents want their children to have nightmares? Shielding children from graphic violence and pornography in books only makes sense if there were no other routes to access it and they weren't likely to encounter it any other way. Shielding children from the truth about their bodies or the horrors and cruelty we inflict on others, is much worse than pornography.



> A book is the only place in which you can examine a fragile thought without breaking it, or explore an explosive idea without fear it will go off in your face. - Edward P. Morgan


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

SiegendesLicht said:


> And besides, well, I have never read the Diary of Anna Frank, so I can't say anything about it's contents, but I can think of books that are definitely not meant for schoolchildren. Now, in case one of such books (some sort of pornography or extreme graphic violence, for example) had indeed made its way into schools, and concerned parents did call for it to be banned, would you say it is a bad thing, and would you say parents who don't want their children to have nightmares are in the wrong?


No, but then, we're not talking about books like that. We're talking about books like this: 100 most frequently challenged books from 2000 - 2009

Surprisingly, the Diary of Anne Frank doesn't really have much violence in it at all. IIRC, the controversy is over a few diary entries of a teenage girl exploring her sexuality in a totally normal, healthy way. The modern teenage girl could probably do much worse reading each others' Facebook pages.


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

I would've thought the disturbing part would be the whole "Nazis systematically abducting and murdering people" bit, but what do I know?


----------



## jani (Jun 15, 2012)

EricABQ said:


> This isn't surprising at all. There is a vocal movement of fundamentalists who are terrified of female sexuality. Quite a pathetic group of people, and when they get control of school boards they can do real damage (see Abstinence Only Sex Ed for example.)


Next they are gonna ban " The friends" Tv show because people kiss in it, after that they want to ban Winnie the pooh because pooh hugs Christopher on it.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

The bit that's quoted from the book is a bit graphic, even though it reads like an innocent girl discovering herself with a sense of humour and wonder. It would depend on the age-group, I imagine, but really, I think it is a bit graphic for schoolkids...


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

The ********! The ********!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Kieran said:


> The bit that's quoted from the book is a bit graphic, even though it reads like an innocent girl discovering herself with a sense of humour and wonder. It would depend on the age-group, I imagine, but really, I think it is a bit graphic for schoolkids...


The premise of withholding information about your body to people who have reached the age where they are capable of sexual reproduction (thanks to hormones in Mom, Pop, your drinking water, etc. some of those young women, age 11, are capable of conceiving....) is wildly irresponsible, insane, and smacks of a smugness beyond belief.

If youth have reached an age when they are capable of fertilizing / conceiving, that is 'not too much' then to teach them what is up, and what can happen. It is like seeing a kid already in a car they inherited and cannot dispose of, and denying them driving lessons.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

SiegendesLicht said:


> And besides, I have never read the Diary of Anne Frank, so I can't say anything about it's contents, but I can think of books that are definitely not meant for schoolchildren. Now, in case one of such books (some sort of pornography or extreme graphic violence, for example) had indeed made its way into schools, and concerned parents did call for it to be banned, would you say it is a bad thing, and would you say parents who don't want their children to have nightmares are in the wrong?


Do you actually know who Anne Frank was ?


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Kieran said:


> The bit that's quoted from the book is a bit graphic, even though it reads like an innocent girl discovering herself with a sense of humour and wonder. It would depend on the age-group, I imagine, but really, I think it is a bit graphic for schoolkids...


Well you have had similar problems in Ireland but there it is usually from the priesthood who would prefer The Diaries OF Peter Frank.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

PetrB said:


> The premise of withholding information about your body to people who have reached the age where they are capable of sexual reproduction (thanks to hormones in Mom, Pop, your drinking water, etc. some of those young women, age 11, are capable of conceiving....) is wildly irresponsible, insane, and smacks of a smugness beyond belief.
> 
> If youth have reached an age when they are capable of fertilizing / conceiving, that is 'not too much' then to teach them what is up, and what can happen. It is like seeing a kid already in a car they inherited and cannot dispose of, and denying them driving lessons.


Well, actually there's a reason why we shouldn't give a kid driving lessons - they'd be a danger to themselves and others. Let's have them come of legal age before we put them behind the wheel of a dangerous vehicle, eh?

As for ages of sexual consent and conception and so forth, I think _it isn't smug_ to be wary of what we let youngsters read and hear. I happen to think it makes sense. There's a difference between educating, nurturing and protecting a child, and exposing them to things they may not be ready for. It can be a fine line, indeed, but it isn't one we should be in a hurry to cross...


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

moody said:


> Well you have had similar problems in Ireland but there it is usually from the priesthood who would prefer The Diaries OF Peter Frank.


I don't understand this, but I'm probably glad I don't...


----------



## RonP (Aug 31, 2012)

And to think I survived The Catcher In the Rye (usual college boy stuff), Huckelberry Finn (racism), The Unvanquished (more racism), Oedious Rex (incest) and Of Mice and Men (profanity) in high school. *Shudders*


----------



## ahammel (Oct 10, 2012)

Kieran said:


> The bit that's quoted from the book is a bit graphic, even though it reads like an innocent girl discovering herself with a sense of humour and wonder. It would depend on the age-group, I imagine, but really, I think it is a bit graphic for schoolkids...


Have we lost sight of the fact that the book is about _the Holocaust_?

I really cannot understand the mind that thinks its OK to expose schoolchildren to the concept of people so evil that they would abduct and murder an 11-year-old girl and her entire extended family for _no reason_ other than racism, and yet blanch at the discovery that said 11-year-old girl possessed a reproductive system.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

ahammel said:


> Have we lost sight of the fact that the book is about _the Holocaust_?
> 
> I really cannot understand the mind that thinks its OK to expose schoolchildren to the concept of people so evil that they would abduct and murder an 11-year-old girl and her entire extended family for _no reason_ other than racism, and yet blanch at the discovery that said 11-year-old girl possessed a reproductive system.


Absolutely. But the thread is about _a part_ of the book, which to me reads like a young girl discovering something wonderous about herself. Is it suitable for kids? It would depend surely on the age of the children and how it's taught. And this would apply to the whole book too, I'm sure. At what age are children capable of understanding these things?

And at what age should they be exposed to it (holocaust and all)?

I think on the whole, the book is invaluable and necessary...


----------



## Mahlerian (Nov 27, 2012)

The fact remains, no matter what your stance on its appropriateness for the age level in question, that the passage is not by any normal conception of the word pornographic. That some would consider it such reflects poorly on our society.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Mahlerian said:


> The fact remains, no matter what your stance on its appropriateness for the age level in question, that the passage is not by any normal conception of the word pornographic. That some would consider it such reflects poorly on our society.


No, I don't think it's pornographic. I think it's _graphic _- as in descriptive - and whether or not it should be read in schools, along with the more important issue of the Holocaust, would come down to how mature and ready the kids are for that. It would depend on the age of the children and how these topics are handled...


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

SiegendesLicht said:


> And besides, I have never read the Diary of Anne Frank, so I can't say anything about it's contents, but I can think of books that are definitely not meant for schoolchildren. Now, in case one of such books (some sort of pornography or extreme graphic violence, for example) had indeed made its way into schools, and concerned parents did call for it to be banned, would you say it is a bad thing, and would you say parents who don't want their children to have nightmares are in the wrong?


And where does banning Mark Twain's "Huck Finn" from grade school and high school libraries come into this argument? The removal of that book a 'done deal' in some areas....

If parents do not 'do their job,' it is rather after the fact to go after the school library, where often the same young person can, in the same town, access exactly that banned book (and not in an expurgated version) from their local library....

This is the kind of move that _smug and irresponsible parents_ make. 
They are in a real minority, object to and cannot live in the society which is theirs, and out of small mindedness are ready to do battle to change all around them to accommodate their level of discomfort about sex, ideas, etc.

They would prefer erasing all around them to discussing, for example, sex with their children. I consider that not only sick, but a critical, major disqualification as to their being parents.

But hey, any idiot can reproduce.


----------



## Kopachris (May 31, 2010)

I think sexual education should focus on how miraculous and powerful biological reproduction is, starting with the miracle of chance that life exists at all. Then we make them watch Spiderman so they can learn that "with this great power comes great responsibility."

Yes, that was a joke.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Many of you will know of the Scopes Monkey Trial from 1925 where the State of Tennessee took a schoolteacher to court for contravening their Tennessee law that stipulated that EVOLUTION should not be taught in schools. This whole travesty was immortalised in the magnificent movie "Inherit the Wind" ,in which the famous lawyers Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan were played by Spencer Tracy and Fredric March (the lawyers' names were altered).
We laughed at the ridiculous beliefs of those days but there hasn't been much change really has there ???


----------



## Ebab (Mar 9, 2013)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Well, abstinence is indeed the only sure way to prevent all those diseases, no?


It is. But life acts differently.

It's about options. Abstinence is an option for some, admirably. Non-abstinence plus condom is another option, and it's not rocket science either.

As a bottom line, presenting both options may prevent the most grief.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

moody said:


> Many of you will know of the Scopes Monkey Trial from 1925 where the State of Tennessee took a schoolteacher to court for contravening their Tennessee law that stipulated that EVOLUTION should not be taught in schools. This whole travesty was immortalised in the magnificent movie "Inherit the Wind" ,in which the famous lawyers Clarence Darrow and William Jennings Bryan were played by Spencer Tracy and Fredric March (the lawyers' names were altered).
> We laughed at the ridiculous beliefs of those days but there hasn't been much change really has there ???


Not much. It is 'telling' that so many Americans can identify words represented by the initials ID that do not involve 'identification'.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

PetrB said:


> And where does banning Mark Twain's "Huck Finn" from grade school and high school libraries come into this argument? The removal of that book a 'done deal' in some areas....


Now, that is really idiotic. What in the world have they found in Huck Finn? There is no pornography or brutal dismemberment there.

And yes, I know who Anne Frank was. In fact I can think of another reason why someone would want that book out of the impressionable young minds. Can't say I agree with this wish (history should be taught even if it cannot keep history from repeating itself in another time and place), but I can definitely see another reason


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

Kieran said:


> No, I don't think it's pornographic. I think it's _graphic _- as in descriptive - and whether or not it should be read in schools, along with the more important issue of the Holocaust, would come down to how mature and ready the kids are for that. It would depend on the age of the children and how these topics are handled...


Now, Kieran, I'm surprised at you. What do you think you're doing, discussing the question's pros & cons with dispassionate common sense, when you could be ranting and raving ... ?


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

:lol: That's true! But you see, I'm listening to Mozart again and so I'll put it down to The Mozart Effect! It can civilise even me


----------



## EricABQ (Jul 10, 2012)

What bothers me the most about this woman who wants the book banned is that she wants it banned because one passage made her daughter "uncomfortable."

If her daughter was uncomfortable reading that passage, that would have been a good time to explain to her why that passage _shouldn't _ have made her uncomfortalbe.


----------



## Ebab (Mar 9, 2013)

I just learned that I must've read (30+ years ago) one of those sanitized versions of the Anne Frank diary. I've always felt it strangely streamlined and too-perfect. Beware editors. I will find a more faithful edition. Thanks to the OP!

She was a _remarkable_ young woman. We will never know the full amount of her literary potential, but her diary will remain a human document for generations to come.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Ebab said:


> I just learned that I must've read (30+ years ago) one of those sanitized versions of the Anne Frank diary. I've always felt it strangely streamlined and too-perfect. Beware editors. I will find a more faithful edition. Thanks to the OP!
> 
> She was a _remarkable_ young woman. We will never know the full amount of her literary potential, but her diary will remain a human document for generations to come.


Amen to that. As as SiegendesLicht wrote, "history should be taught even if it cannot keep history from repeating itself in another time and place..."


----------



## Ingélou (Feb 10, 2013)

EricABQ said:


> What bothers me the most about this woman who wants the book banned is that she wants it banned because one passage made her daughter "uncomfortable."
> 
> If her daughter was uncomfortable reading that passage, that would have been a good time to explain to her why that passage _shouldn't _ have made her uncomfortalbe.


So in the name of free speech you want a parent to manipulate her daughter's response so that she 'feels correctly'? As a former English teacher, I can't see how this would help anyone.

Look, the girl's mother thinks she should have been told if sensitive material was going to be used, and then she could have withdrawn the girl or talked it over or whatever. This isn't actually about sex education or being brought up to be ashamed of your bodies. Get real, everyone.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Good post, Ingenue. At what point should the rights of the parent to raise their child the way they see fit, be upheld?

A parent wouldn't be 'doing their job' if they left their children's education unexamined.

*Let's not have anybody mistake this for a call to censorship or prudery or anything else.*

I've written enough times above that the passage isn't pornographic and that if it's going to be in schools, it depends on the age of the children, their ability to process it properly and the way the issues are handled and discussed...


----------



## EricABQ (Jul 10, 2012)

Ingenue said:


> So in the name of free speech you want a parent to manipulate her daughter's response so that she 'feels correctly'? As a former English teacher, I can't see how this would help anyone.


No, I want parents to raise children who aren't made uncomfortable by fairly innocuous descriptions of the human body. If someone is made uncomfortable by that, the solution isn't to shield them from it, but to help them get over their discomfort.


----------



## Ebab (Mar 9, 2013)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Now, that is really idiotic. What in the world have they found in Huck Finn? There is no pornography or brutal dismemberment there.


They found the word "******". It is a controversial word, but even if teachers promised to thoroughly address the historical context of that word (which, in my understanding, is the very purpose of school), some parents still wouldn't accept that.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Ebab said:


> They found the word "******". It is a controversial word, but even if teachers promised to thoroughly address the historical context of that word (which, in my understanding, is the very purpose of school), some parents still wouldn't accept that.


In this case I am going to start a worldwide campaign for the banning of _rap music_, starting tomorrow morning! That word is used in probably every other of rap "songs". Here's at last a legal reason to get rid of that rubbish! Yeah!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Ingenue said:


> So in the name of free speech you want a parent to manipulate her daughter's response so that she 'feels correctly'? As a former English teacher, I can't see how this would help anyone.
> 
> Look, the girl's mother thinks she should have been told if sensitive material was going to be used, and then she could have withdrawn the girl or talked it over or whatever. This isn't actually about sex education or being brought up to be ashamed of your bodies. Get real, everyone.


What age reader are we talking about? American schools, its very unlikely the young woman was reading this as a school requirement any earlier than 7th or 8th grade -- (I'm thinking even that is 'advanced' for most U.S. public education.)

Say, more reasonably and likely, the text is an assigned read in high school, age now 13, 14. Anne Frank,a typical adolescent, is gob-smacked with highly romanticized inchoate crushes on film stars: she is also fantasizing about / hoping for a romance with fellow in hiding slightly older Peter, and in this extraordinary circumstance where a young teenager is strongly conscious that her life could be over, terminated before she ever reaches adulthood... wonders if she will die before having ever been kissed by a boyfriend.

Other than the awareness of imminent death, thinking and behaving like the majority of early teens, then. Early teens, I hasten to remind, who are capable of sexual reproduction.

About those nightmares. If reading the book is going to give a youngster nightmares because they realize that for no real good reason, they could be part of a persecuted group targeted for genocide, I think that a good thing.

As far as either mother or daughter's 'discomfort' about some normal sexual / emotional energy which rages in every young teen whether the parents wish to acknowledge that or not? I'd rather have mum and daughter uncomfortable than ignorant.

In the states there is this particular situation of parents too embarrassed to speak with their children about sex, who do not speak to them about sex at all when it is most important / pertinent to their child, and they are so embarrassed / priggish that they also insist the child get that information nowhere else. That to me is 'parental neglect' -- no matter the reason, so egregious that if it is not taken care of outside the home, despite the parent's loud protests, then the society is failing the child as much or more than the parent is.

Some things just need doing, and if the parents will not, and that negligence is going to cost that society -- big time -- then I think the society / government has a duty to step in. If the parents aren't adult enough to parent, someone has to do it.

Whose time to 'get real' -- and about what?


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

Kieran said:


> Good post, Ingenue. At what point should the rights of the parent to raise their child the way they see fit, be upheld?


They don't have that right to begin with.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Ebab said:


> They found the word "******". It is a controversial word, but even if teachers promised to thoroughly address the historical context of that word (which, in my understanding, is the very purpose of school), some parents still wouldn't accept that.


You may be referring to the appellation '****** Jim'. That's too specific; the objectionable word is '******' (no capitalization specified). There is no historical context in which that word is not demeaning (with one very minor exception). Reading the story, one notes that Huck had no particular disrespect for Jim, but that is only relevant _after_ the reader understands that Huck's regard was not the 'commonly accepted' one.

Establishing the relationship between time-and-place and the use of '******' should be done _before_ the child reads the book - but doing so does not change the flavor of the word, only its strength.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

TresPicos said:


> They don't have that right to begin with.


What should they do then? Leave that right to the street "society" or to MTV or to teachers who are actually nothing but paid professionals whose job it is to transmit knowledge, not replace parents for the whole class?


----------



## cwarchc (Apr 28, 2012)

I find it utterly amazing that they are concentrating on one passage?

Here's another quote from her, which may explain her own thoughts

“I have one outstanding trait in my character, which must strike anyone who knows me for any length of time, and that is my knowledge of myself. I can watch myself and my actions, just like an outsider. The Anne of every day I can face entirely without prejudice, without making excuses for her, and watch what's good and what's bad about her. This 'self-consciousness' haunts me, and every time I open my mouth I know as soon as I've spoken whether 'that ought to have been different' or 'that was right as it was.' There are so many things about myself that I condemn; I couldn't begin to name them all. I understand more and more how true Daddy's words were when he said: 'All children must look after their own upbringing.' Parents can only give good advice or put them on the right paths, but the final forming of a person's character lies in their own hands.”


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

SiegendesLicht said:


> What should they do then? Leave that right to the street "society" or to MTV or to teachers who are actually nothing but paid professionals whose job it is to transmit knowledge, not replace parents for the whole class?


Did you miss the phrase "as they see fit"?


----------



## Ebab (Mar 9, 2013)

Hilltroll72 said:


> You may be referring to the appellation '****** Jim'. That's too specific; the objectionable word is '******' (no capitalization specified). There is no historical context in which that word is not demeaning (with one very minor exception). Reading the story, one notes that Huck had no particular disrespect for Jim, but that is only relevant _after_ the reader understands that Huck's regard was not the 'commonly accepted' one.
> 
> Establishing the relationship between time-and-place and the use of '******' should be done _before_ the child reads the book - but doing so does not change the flavor of the word, only its strength.


OK, it's quite possible that I'm losing my mind here ...

The word "******" is demeaning as we see it now (the fact that every African-American rap video is full of '******' may confuse that, but let's leave that out for a moment). The word "******", or "******", as Twain used it, in _his_ time, was nothing but the usage of his time (and, like you said, Twain absolutely didn't imply any particular disrespect beyond the every-day us of his time). So, if we explain that fact to the reading (let's be thankful if they read) children of our time (and I think we can), what could possibly be the problem?


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Did you miss the phrase "as they see fit"?


No, I did not. That's what I meant to say - it is the parents' right to raise children as they see fit, not as the mass media, other neighborhood kids, teachers, government ideologues etc. see fit. And it is the parents' duty to instill enough "backbone" into their children for them to be able to resist all the conflicting influences and not grown into immature people, torn every which way. I am talking about good parents, obviously.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

SiegendesLicht said:


> What should they do then? Leave that right to the street "society" or to MTV or to teachers who are actually nothing but paid professionals whose job it is to transmit knowledge, not replace parents for the whole class?


They should face the reality that their little darlings, even prior reproductive age, are *SEXUAL*, and that their little darlings need to be informed about matters *SEXUAL*, *and at what time, when, in the society they live in, informing their children of matters SEXUAL is necessary,* and then do the job a parent should do.

That is what they should do, instead of standing on some precious notion of childhood innocence when the children themselves are no longer truly innocent, are already hearing things from the street, etc. Some parents really do withhold Sex Education from their children for reasons of a personal self-conceit of their moral superiority, or smug quasi-spiritual tenets.

If the parents are, for any of those above reasons, or are simply too embarrassed and 'uncomfortable' to speak of things *SEXUAL* with their children, that shirked responsibility then must fall upon others, for the welfare of the child and the society.

If all the appearances of the word *SEXUAL* here have you uncomfortable, you are nowhere near 'adult.' I pity the child of a parent who is uncomfortable about teaching their child about sex.


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

SiegendesLicht said:


> No, I did not. That's what I meant to say - it is the parents' right to raise children as they see fit, not as the mass media, other neighborhood kids, teachers, government ideologues etc. see fit. And it is the parents' duty to instill enough "backbone" into their children for them to be able to resist all the conflicting influences and not grown into immature people, torn every which way. I am talking about good parents, obviously.


Ah, _Good Parents_. I suspect that your _Good Parents_ will raise their children to fit into society - along with neighborhood kids also raised by _Good Parents_, taught by _Good Teachers_, maybe even provide them with the means for coping with the products of _Not So Good Parents & Teachers_. Those specifications, however, are not included in the phrase 'as they see fit'.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

PetrB said:


> In the states there is this particular situation of parents too embarrassed to speak with their children about sex, who do not speak to them about sex at all when it is most important / pertinent to their child, and they are so embarrassed / priggish that they also insist the child get that information nowhere else. That to me is 'parental neglect' -- no matter the reason, so egregious that if it is not taken care of outside the home, despite the parent's loud protests, then the society is failing the child as much or more than the parent is.
> 
> Some things just need doing, and if the parents will not, and that negligence is going to cost that society -- big time -- then I think the society / government has a duty to step in. If the parents aren't adult enough to parent, someone has to do it.
> 
> Whose time to 'get real' -- and about what?


I think that if parents leave it to society to educate their kids on sex, then the kids will be in real trouble. Just because a child is of an age where she can reproduce, this doesn't mean that it's anyone's job to hassle, bombard or pressure her into growing up faster than she is. It's a parent's duty to protect their child - and I can't think of anything more dangerous and sinister than a liberal society being the one to decide how fast a child should grow up and learn these things.

It would be negligent of the parents to allow this, as well as an infringement on their rights as parents.

You may disagree, and I respect this, but there are other views than yours which see society and school as being the least best option for informing a growing child on these things...


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

SiegendesLicht said:


> No, I did not. That's what I meant to say - it is the parents' right to raise children as they see fit, not as the mass media, other neighborhood kids, teachers, government ideologues etc. see fit. And it is the parents' duty to instill enough "backbone" into their children for them to be able to resist all the conflicting influences and not grown into immature people, torn every which way. I am talking about good parents, obviously.


Parents have the _responsibility_ to raise their child in a way that is beneficial for the child. The right to "do as they see fit" is just an alibi to avoid actually having to find out what _is_ beneficial for the child.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

TresPicos said:


> Parents have the _responsibility_ to raise their child in a way that is beneficial for the child. The right to "do as they see fit" is just an alibi to avoid actually having to find out what _is_ beneficial for the child.


So who decides what's beneficial for the child? The ones who love the child? Or do they have a different function?


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Kieran said:


> So who decides what's beneficial for the child? The ones who love the child? Or do they have a different function?


You are garbling the message. The parents do not - can not - decide what is beneficial for the child. The world decides that.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Hilltroll72 said:


> You are garbling the message. The parents do not - can not - decide what is beneficial for the child. The world decides that.


How can 'the world' decide what's beneficial for a child? How is that possible?

And which part of the world should we consult first? Iran? North Korea? Pakistan? Germany? Iceland? the USA? Ireland?

The liberal part of the world? Or conservative? Religious? Okay, which one?

Atheist? Okay, which sort?

Too many differing views, I'm afraid...


----------



## TresPicos (Mar 21, 2009)

Kieran said:


> So who decides what's beneficial for the child? The ones who love the child? Or do they have a different function?


The parent, after having taken into consideration enough information and different views to be able to make informed decisions (after having realized that "as they see fit" is not necessarily good enough).


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

TresPicos said:


> The parent, after having taken into consideration enough information and different views to be able to make informed decisions (after having realized that "as they see fit" is not necessarily good enough).


Let me correct this for ya,  :

"The parent, after having taken into consideration enough information and different views to be able to make informed decisions - then have to act as they see fit..."


----------



## Ukko (Jun 4, 2010)

Kieran said:


> Let me correct this for ya,  :
> 
> "The parent, after having taken into consideration enough information and different views to be able to make informed decisions - then have to act as they see fit..."


Sheesh. So they see fit to raise the kids to live in the woods and eat human flesh. The plethora of illogical process in this thread is just... too much to contemplate. I'm outa here.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Kieran said:


> I think that if parents leave it to society to educate their kids on sex, then the kids will be in real trouble. Just because a child is of an age where she can reproduce, this doesn't mean that it's anyone's job to hassle, bombard or pressure her into growing up faster than she is. It's a parent's duty to protect their child - and I can't think of anything more dangerous and sinister than a liberal society being the one to decide how fast a child should grow up and learn these things.
> 
> It would be negligent of the parents to allow this, as well as an infringement on their rights as parents.
> 
> You may disagree, and I respect this, but there are other views than yours which see society and school as being the least best option for informing a growing child on these things...


The only solution is to isolate yourself and the child from the society, prepare them for what pressures will be felt before those pressures are felt, or skip town, burrough, district, state, and find a place where more around you are in agreement with you.

Kids are sexual, long before they can reproduce. If that child is walking out of the house, and dealing with other children of less than ideal parents, the world at large, the parents conceits of preserving innocence may have a certain naive charm, but are of no Earthly (or Godly) use to anyone.

*[[ADD: The ideal age, no later, imo, to teach your child about sex is the age of 12, that biblical denoted age when one is made aware of becoming adult. There is a biological reality as the basis for naming that age which, no matter how society has changed, remains the same today as only several thousand years ago.

Ergo, that is both your social / tribal and parental duty, teach that kid about sex by age twelve -- long before it is 'required' in any schools.]]*


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

Hilltroll72 said:


> Sheesh. So they see fit to raise the kids to live in the woods and eat human flesh. The plethora of illogical process in this thread is just... too much to contemplate. I'm outa here.


Yeah, should have left it to 'the world' to teach the kids, eh? Strict logic applied there, alright...


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Kieran said:


> So who decides what's beneficial for the child? The ones who love the child? Or do they have a different function?


It is not a religion ~ 'Love' is not enough.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

PetrB said:


> The only solution is to isolate yourself and the child from the society, prepare them for what pressures will be felt before those pressures are felt, or skip town, burrough, district, state, and find a place where more around you are in agreement with you.
> 
> Kids are sexual, long before they can reproduce. If that child is walking out of the house, and dealing with other children of less than ideal parents, the world at large, the parents conceits of preserving innocence may have a certain naive charm, but are of no Earthly (or Godly) use to anyone.


Why are you so suspicious of parents? Why are they so bad and ill-informed? Are they not part of society too? And do they not know their own kids better than anyone?

I know you're keen to shock us by telling how sexual you find children to be. Thankfully, the law says otherwise and protects them being pushed into sexual behaviour before they're considered to be adult enough to handle it.

Good.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

PetrB said:


> They should face the reality that their little darlings, even prior reproductive age, are *SEXUAL*, and that their little darlings need to be informed about matters *SEXUAL*, *and at what time, when, in the society they live in, informing their children of matters SEXUAL is necessary,* and then do the job a parent should do.
> 
> That is what they should do, instead of standing on some precious notion of childhood innocence when the children themselves are no longer truly innocent, are already hearing things from the street, etc. Some parents really do withhold Sex Education from their children for reasons of a personal self-conceit of their moral superiority, or smug quasi-spiritual tenets.
> 
> ...


Wow, that word must be of such supreme importance to you! I just wonder how all our ancestors throughout all generations managed to give birth and raise kids (and most turn them out alright) without ever reading anything about what their sex organs look like.


----------



## SiegendesLicht (Mar 4, 2012)

I think I've just lost a friend (and this forum a member) over this thread. 
If you are still reading this, and it is because of something I have said, I am very very sorry.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

SiegendesLicht said:


> Wow, that word must be of such supreme importance to you! I just wonder how all our ancestors throughout all generations managed to give birth and raise kids (and most turn them out alright) without ever reading anything about what their sex organs look like.


They fumbled through: we do not have to, and do not have that luxury.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

SiegendesLicht said:


> I think I've just lost a friend (and this forum a member) over this thread.
> If you are still reading this, and it is because of something I have said, I am very very sorry.


Hopefully you didn't.

I think this thread has wondered far from its beginning, which is the Anne Frank book. My view on that is that it's a book which is an invaluable asset for us historically and should be taught in schools, responsibly and among children who can understand and handle its implications.

Perhaps other than this, the thread is unnecessarily now divisive on a forum where we come to discuss music?

If I offended anybody: Pax!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Kieran said:


> Why are you so suspicious of parents? Why are they so bad and ill-informed? Are they not part of society too? And do they not know their own kids better than anyone?
> 
> I know you're keen to shock us by telling how sexual you find children to be. Thankfully, the law says otherwise and protects them being pushed into sexual behaviour before they're considered to be adult enough to handle it.
> 
> Good.


I'm not keen to shock. If you find it shocking, you're part of the problem, no offense meant... The law is there not because those young people are 'not sexual.' I'm not advocating that anyone be 'sexually active; at age twelve (I find that idea appalling -- which is generally thought appalling, Ergo, the law), because we have a construct where no one in our society is at all ready for the emotional implications of such acts.

I live in a country with far too many parents not parenting, taking much responsibilty at all with their children. There is in the states a startling teen pregnancy rate due to many social conditions but fundamentally because of ignorance.

I do believe that the perfect age for informing your child about sex is age 12, that biblical age of rite of passage to some kind of beginning adulthood -- that too, a sort of 'law,' I think resisting that notion near criminal, and negligent toward the child in the society we do live in.

I would also think that once you have a child, it is no longer at all 'about you,' or the more idyllic and lovely world you wish were rather than the one we actually live in. You cannot so isolate and protect your children from what is all around us within that society. Better to prepare them than keep them in the dark when they are safer in the light of information.


----------



## Kieran (Aug 24, 2010)

PetrB said:


> I'm not keen to shock. If you find it shocking, you're part of the problem, no offense meant... The law is there not because those young people are 'not sexual.' I'm not advocating that anyone be 'sexually active; at age twelve (I find that idea appalling -- which is generally thought appalling, Ergo, the law), because we have a construct where no one in our society is at all ready for the emotional implications of such acts.
> 
> I do believe that the perfect age for informing your child about sex is age 12, that biblical age of rite of passage to some kind of beginning adulthood -- that too, a sort of 'law,'
> 
> ...


I accept that view, PetrB, and you have to accept that others see differently. It doesn't mean they're being negligent, anymore than there's some scientific way of proving your way is better.

Anyhow, would you agree this thread has run its course? I'll reply, if you don't, but I think it has...Cheers!


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Ebab said:


> OK, it's quite possible that I'm losing my mind here ...
> 
> The word "******" is demeaning as we see it now (the fact that every African-American rap video is full of '******' may confuse that, but let's leave that out for a moment). The word "******", or "******", as Twain used it, in _his_ time, was nothing but the usage of his time (and, like you said, Twain absolutely didn't imply any particular disrespect beyond the every-day us of his time). So, if we explain that fact to the reading (let's be thankful if they read) children of our time (and I think we can), what could possibly be the problem?


LOL. The next hurdle is explaining about ****** Jim constantly addressing Huck as "Honey." People who see bugbears where there are none _would be all over that_ as well.

Re-read it lately, slipped into addressing people as 'honey' - realized that it was a slip and stopped immediately  [But that waitress at the diner counter who comes up to me and asks, "What're ya having, Honey" only charms? ...Go figure.]

A great book.


----------



## PetrB (Feb 28, 2012)

Kieran said:


> I accept that view, PetrB, and you have to accept that others see differently. It doesn't mean they're being negligent, anymore than there's some scientific way of proving your way is better.
> 
> Anyhow, would you agree this thread has run its course? I'll reply, if you don't, but I think it has...Cheers!


I completely agree -- it is 'problematical' and every parent and child is at least a little different, as are the mores of any particular locale, and that there will be forever a polarized disagreement on the matter.

I will say if all parents met some standard of doing their job, then the dread of a nanny state interfering with 'how to raise your children' (your fears and mine) would greatly diminish


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Ingenue said:


> So in the name of free speech you want a parent to manipulate her daughter's response so that she 'feels correctly'? As a former English teacher, I can't see how this would help anyone.
> 
> Look, the girl's mother thinks she should have been told if sensitive material was going to be used, and then she could have withdrawn the girl or talked it over or whatever. This isn't actually about sex education or being brought up to be ashamed of your bodies. Get real, everyone.


I object to being told to get real .
I have three children of my own and think I know something of what is and is not appropriate.
First of all seventh graders are in the 12-14 age group, we are not speaking of infants here.
The mother said that portions of the diary were pretty graphic and pretty pornographic and made her daughter uncomfortable.
She also said that it was inappropriate for teachers to be giving this material out to kids when it's really the parents' job.
I thought I would I would check on the exact meaning oh the word pornography--I already knew it as surely an English teacher would.
"Pornography is the explicit portrayal of sexual subject matter for the purposes of sexual gratification"
What,little Anne Frank ? So the mother is not only stupid but illiterate apparently. On top of that she has apparently allowed her children to get to the age of between twelve and fourteen without broaching the subject. When was she going to get round to it when they were eighteen.
Lastly,the teachers were not dishing out explicit material but they were supplying a type of pornography--the pornography of murder and mass murder and the story of one small child lost in this blasphemy.
That diary stands as a beacon and a warning for us all of the evil abroad in our midst.
Perhaps it is you who should get real.


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

Kieran said:


> Hopefully you didn't.
> 
> I think this thread has wondered far from its beginning, which is the Anne Frank book. My view on that is that it's a book which is an invaluable asset for us historically and should be taught in schools, responsibly and among children who can understand and handle its implications.
> 
> ...


No it isn't about the Anne frank diary but what one woman said about it in public.

No,it isn't about the Anne Frank Diary but what one woman said ABOUT it in public.
Also this is within the Community Forum which is not for music only.
Also, you failed to inform us of your credentials as a family man--'though I'm sure you must be one such !!


----------



## moody (Nov 5, 2011)

SiegendesLicht said:


> What should they do then? Leave that right to the street "society" or to MTV or to teachers who are actually nothing but paid professionals whose job it is to transmit knowledge, not replace parents for the whole class?


Parents do not have the right to raise their children as THEY think fit ---that's what the man said and it is all laid down by law.


----------



## EricABQ (Jul 10, 2012)

igharp said:


> Agreed. Much better to teach a culture of sexual permissiveness, so that they can grow up to be typical American harlots who consider getting gangbanged by the football team a part of their character development.


Yeah, because it's a clear either/or situation. Either be a member of a purity worshiping virginity cult or the biggest tramp in town. There's of course nothing in between those two extremes.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

EricABQ said:


> With these people it's not just about preventing disease. It's about teaching girls that their entire worth is tied up in their "purity." The effects this has on the psyche of young girls is damaging.


How does it daMage a young gill's psyche? Come on, give some evidence.


----------



## DavidA (Dec 14, 2012)

I can only go by my own experience in this in counselling couples.
Those who waited for sex before marriage and kept themselves for each other are glad they did.
Those who didn't wished they had.
To say that the teaching of abstinence before marriage damages people's psyches is a complete load of nonsense. To say that it teaches people that sex is somehow wrong dirty is a totally wrong conception of what is taught, at least in my experience. Sex is a wonderful thing to be enjoyed within the appropriate boundaries. Now I realise I am in the minority but nevertheless that is of you that is just as valid as the so-called 'free love' view.

Getting back to the book. The mother did right to be concerned about what her child was reading, whether by Anne Frank or anyone else. That is merely good parenting. If we do not know what our children are reading all watching then we are not doing our job properly as parents. Whether the reaction in seeking to have the book banned is an overreaction I would probably say yes. What I would have done if it had been my daughter is to for me or my wife to have read the book with the young lady. These things can then be explained within the safety of the parent/child relationship.

However note we have only got the guardians version (not noted always for truth) and they would love to make out that people with these views are extremists as their idiot columnists tend to peddle the opposite.


----------



## Chi_townPhilly (Apr 21, 2007)

Thread temporarily closed... 
repairs are forthcoming---


----------

