November 29, 2012
IN A WAY, it’s endearing that some parents still believe that they can send their little children off to the local elementary school and keep them from encountering the freakish and abnormal. It’s endearing because it suggests that these parents have been living in an oasis of some kind where their innocence has been mysteriously preserved, and that’s good, I guess.
Here’s an example of a very innocent parent. A kindergarten student in Kaysville, Utah brought home a picture book about lesbian mothers from the school library’s “Easy Reading” section. It was one of those picture books that portrays a life with lesbian mothers — women who most likely have acquired their child in a commercial transaction with a man, thereby permanently estranging the child from his father — as idyllic. Apparently this student’s mother didn’t know that she could fully expect her child to be acquainted not only with sex but with various sexual disorders by at least second grade. The mother was shocked by the book. The mother complained to the school and, after some consideration, the school decided to place the book behind the library checkout counter, available only upon request with written parental permission, sort of like putting a bottle of gin in the nurse’s office and letting six-year-olds take a shot if they have a note from their parents.
But that new rule, of course, provoked a lawsuit, according to The Islander newspaper. The Davis School District is being sued by the ACLU; the Utah Library Association, which represents the state’s librarians; and others. The suit seeks to force the school to remove all restrictions on materials “advocating homosexuality” in the elementary school library, and The Islander writes that the whole experience may serve to bring “greater awareness” to other schools.
According to an attorney for the ACLU, the fact that the book was available to students but kept behind the counter placed “a real stigma on it.” By the same logic, male strippers should be allowed to dance in the school hallways because if they aren’t that would place a “real stigma” on strippers. Stigma must be reserved for those who disapprove of the freakish and abnormal.
Even when the school district loses this lawsuit, which is almost certain, there will probably still be parents who persist in the illusion that there is something they can do. There is nothing they can do. There is nothing, short of running for their lives from their local elementary school.
—- Comments —-
“Even when the school district loses this lawsuit, which is almost certain, there will probably still be parents who persist in the illusion that there is something they can do. There is nothing they can do. There is nothing, short of running for their lives from their local elementary school.”
In this particular case the library was a school library so there is a place to run to (home) as well as a place to run from.
Tomorrow, it will be a local county library. There will be lawsuits, and the county library will be forced to put Heather Has Two Mommies or some such on their display shelves. Should we run away from that? Isn’t there a point where you have to stop running, even if you don’t want to run?
Then what? I keep asking this of myself and I have no answer. Do you?
I think the answer is political separatism.
Joe A. writes:
Diana asks if we should stop running. Damn straight. It should stopped 40 years ago when the American Cultural Revolution got its start.
Fact is, this would all end if we simply said “no”. Instead, it is as though we suffer under an incantation, a magic spell that keeps us asleep and agreeable.
In the Chinese Cultural Revolution, dissent was met with a bullet to the head (I heard this from the mouth of a survivor and family friend). Here we only need endure some kind of weird opprobrium from people we don’t like in the first place.
Yet even Leftists, perhaps especially Leftists who require constant never-ending validation, are susceptible to social pressures and shunning (ostracism).
Can’t we all agree it’s high time we reassert our proprietary interest over our hirelings? It starts with speaking our mind without hesitation or reserve. This will succeed in a way no lawsuit could ever hope to succeed: by changing attitudes the old fashioned way, because we say so.
I think quite a few people have spoken out in California, but it wasn’t enough to prevent the legislature and governor from approving a law that makes treatment of homosexualized teenagers illegal.
I think the answer is political separatism.” How do you envisage this, practically? Doesn’t separatism pre-suppose at least a territorial contiguity? Except in the South, the opposition is scattered throughout the country – and a huge country it is.
Individuals could declare themselves part of a new national entity even if they lived in scattered locations, as Jeffersonian detailed in his proposal.
My mistake! I thought you wrote, “political secession” – but you wrote “political separatism.” Not the same thing. I’m usually a pretty good reader, but in this case, I goofed. I really did read one word for the other. And the reason I goofed is that secession – the old-fashioned Confederate kind – is being talked about quite seriously now.
But as you linked to Jeffersonian’s proposal, I suspect that you meant secession as much as separatism. Is there a difference?
In any case, people can write about secession or separatism all they want – “the divorce” will not happen amicably. It didn’t happen the last time, and it won’t happen the next time. If it happens at all. Why do you think it would be amicable when there is no model for such? I don’t think that the division of Czechoslovakia into Slovakia and the Czech Republic, or the separation of Norway from the Kingdom of Sweden, count for much. They are so different from us. I believe Yugoslavia is a better model. Or our own Civil War, one of the worst in history. If any state attempted to secede, Uncle Sam would be on him with the full genocidal power at his disposal. The only thing that will lead to separatism/secession would be a crisis. Probably of an economic kind.
The French Quebecois have achieved cultural independence as a separate province in France. That should be the first goal, to establish some kind of independence for certain states or regions.
It seems there would be incentives for the government to let certain states go their own way. And honestly, I don’t see that liberals hold national unity as an ideal. I would think they would be eager to have their own Sweden in America. Let the rednecks and rubes have their own country.
The issue of homosexual marriage alone promises to lead to irreconcilable tensions between the states. Now that more states have approved it, the stage is set for more vicious custody disputes, similar to the Lisa Miller case. And those states who don’t recognize same-sex unions will be drawn into these disputes despite the Defense of Marriage Act.
Posted by Laura Wood in Uncategorized