Running with the Buffaloes banned

It cracks me up that people these days actually believe in the "purity" of our youth....

Kids these days have iPhones, and are engaging in sexual activity by the time they're in middle school. I'm sure they've heard the F word along with a slew of other "bad" words - probably from their own parents (ironically enough). They've watched movies and tv shows with this sort of language (unless you're forcing your kid to watch the Disney Channel well into their teens...).

How about we ALL take the burden of teaching our kids into OUR OWN HANDS. I'll teach my kids what words are socially acceptable or not before that age, and when they read that, they'll know. They'll be able to distinguish the difference. Sure, they'll know it's a "bad" word, the same way that they know not to go walking around calling black people the "N word" just because they read it in Huck Finn.

Take some responsibility in teaching your own child.

nanners15 wrote:

eat run swag's reaction-

http://eatrunswag.com/2012/02/02/overweight-mother-upset-over-son-reading-a-book-about-running/

Glad you mentioned this. I particularly enjoyed his thoughts on the matter.

Laywerr wrote:

tunkcart wrote:

The Bible contains a whole host of words that would get you in trouble if you said them in a middle school classroom--but they're unlikely to ban it from the same library.

The hell they won't.

If you walk into any Public School library and find a Bible, let me know so that I can sue them for failure to separate church from state.

Oofah! Do you understand the concept of “Separation of Church and State”? It in no way means that the two can not be in any way connected.

According to the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The government can not sponsor or meddle with religion. That’s it.

Neither the constitution itself, nor the concept of “Separation of Church and State”, prohibit a public library from containing a book that relates to religion.

I think your sarcasm muscle needs some toning boyo.

Better watch out or your kids will grow up to talk like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knOo0fZ-iDE

I've never understood what parents think they are protecting their children from by removing profanity from their reading material. How many examples of promising children derailed by exposure to profanity can anyone cite?

Everyone agrees that children need to read more. But if the books we propose to them are cured lawns and not savage forrests, they'll not be interested. Literature can be edifying and instructive (and profanity will not abate that), and fantastic and allegorical and so many more things. Depreciating writing because it contains profanity is just the wrong way to go.

People hear profanity in real life. If it's absent from books, the books lose that much more relevancy.

I can think back fondly to my first reading of "The Catcher in the Rye". Profanity-laden, heart-wrenching, and a transformative experience. If anyone had forbidden it to me, I'd hate them passionately right now.

yes, I am reading Tropic of Cancer to my 8 year old because it is a classic and I liked it a lot.

gramthlete wrote:

I've never understood what parents think they are protecting their children from by removing profanity from their reading material. How many examples of promising children derailed by exposure to profanity can anyone cite?

Everyone agrees that children need to read more. But if the books we propose to them are cured lawns and not savage forrests, they'll not be interested. Literature can be edifying and instructive (and profanity will not abate that), and fantastic and allegorical and so many more things. Depreciating writing because it contains profanity is just the wrong way to go.

People hear profanity in real life. If it's absent from books, the books lose that much more relevancy.

I can think back fondly to my first reading of "The Catcher in the Rye". Profanity-laden, heart-wrenching, and a transformative experience. If anyone had forbidden it to me, I'd hate them passionately right now.

gramthlete wrote:

I've never understood what parents think they are protecting their children from by removing profanity from their reading material. How many examples of promising children derailed by exposure to profanity can anyone cite?

So agip, I'm surprised you went right past this part of the post. Aren't you in favor of "sheltering" youth from this material?

???????? wrote:

gramthlete wrote:

I've never understood what parents think they are protecting their children from by removing profanity from their reading material. How many examples of promising children derailed by exposure to profanity can anyone cite?

So agip, I'm surprised you went right past this part of the post. Aren't you in favor of "sheltering" youth from this material?

__

Yes, I am in favor of sheltering 12 year olds. you're not?

By the way, A Goucher agrees the book should not be on the shelf at middle schools. for god sake, it has the f word in the table of contents!

But anyway, to repeat for the 4th time, I think by their actions of putting that book on the shelf, the school is sanctioning inappropriate speech and undermining parents.

And the school agrees.

agip wrote:

Yes, I am in favor of sheltering 12 year olds. you're not?

By the way, A Goucher agrees the book should not be on the shelf at middle schools. for god sake, it has the f word in the table of contents!

But anyway, to repeat for the 4th time, I think by their actions of putting that book on the shelf, the school is sanctioning inappropriate speech and undermining parents.

And the school agrees.

You are not responding to the portion of the post that was quoted.

Call Forest Middle School! Let them hear your thoughts. If women concerned about the Komen issue can mobilize, can't we? Call them at 434-525-6630. Do it now.

this is a non-response wrote:

agip wrote:

Yes, I am in favor of sheltering 12 year olds. you're not?

By the way, A Goucher agrees the book should not be on the shelf at middle schools. for god sake, it has the f word in the table of contents!

But anyway, to repeat for the 4th time, I think by their actions of putting that book on the shelf, the school is sanctioning inappropriate speech and undermining parents.

And the school agrees.

You are not responding to the portion of the post that was quoted.

He has a funny habit of doing that when asked a question.

Probably because he couldn't work the word "shelter" into his response.

this is a non-response wrote:

agip wrote:

Yes, I am in favor of sheltering 12 year olds. you're not?

By the way, A Goucher agrees the book should not be on the shelf at middle schools. for god sake, it has the f word in the table of contents!

But anyway, to repeat for the 4th time, I think by their actions of putting that book on the shelf, the school is sanctioning inappropriate speech and undermining parents.

And the school agrees.

You are not responding to the portion of the post that was quoted.

___

It's a bogus question. How many examples can I cite of kids being derailed by profanity? It isn't answerable. How can I respond to it? Do kids go off the rails? yes. Is one of the reasons a kid goes off the rails a weak parent who does not shelter the child and set high, consistent standards? Of course.

The better question is how many kids have benefited from a clear sense of what is appropriate and what isn't, mostly from parents but corroborated by schools and churches? What do you think the answer is - billions or just hundreds of millions?

What am I protecting my son from? From aimless moral relativism, I suppose. From not believing in standards. From thinking all this talk about appropriate and inappropriate language is just empty. I could go on.

(and remember here, I'm talking middle school - in high school the standards go very wide)

agip wrote:

What am I protecting my son from? From aimless moral relativism, I suppose. From not believing in standards. From thinking all this talk about appropriate and inappropriate language is just empty. I could go on.

Okay, this is an actual response to the point the other poster made.

Personally, I tend to think that my kid will learn more from seeing the world as it is and drawing his own conclusions. He hears professionals present articulate arguments and he hears educated family friends debating topics. He also hears trashy people using vulgarity because they lack the vocabulary and mental capacity to form a coherent argument. His conclusion that the former is preferable is strongly supported by his experience with the latter.

When I let my son see the parts of the world that I find offensive, it is not because I want him to think that it is appropriate. Quite the opposite, really. I trust his ability to draw his own conclusions and I think that he can decide for himself that something is inappropriate or ineffective. His sense of right and wrong will be strengthened, not harmed, by his experience with things that are wrong.

You are basically saying that if your child sees something, he will automatically think that what he sees is right. I can only assume that your child is smarter than that. To hide things that you think are wrong for fear that your child will blindly accept all that he sees as right is to lack faith in your own child's intelligence.

This is from the other thread - it is more clear than I have been:

You guys making a big deal about this are really ridiculous.

Most kids have seen some porn one way or another by middle school, but it wouldn't be ok to put a big nude statue on the playground.

Kids can get the book from the public library or the bookstore if their parents are ok with it. It's not up to a school to decide how much profanity an 11 year old should be exposed to during school hours.

The point is not that swearing is a terrible sin. It's that kids are totally impressionable and need to be taught what is appropriate and when. Telling kids they can't say "f*ck" in the library but then handing them a book that is full of that language is not so easy to comprehend for a very young mind.

___

well, we clearly have differences in how we parent - cheers.

What I find interesting is how get defensive over the slightest hint of difference of opinion and ignore any other point of view other than your own.

You are exactly the type of person that can be more damaging to other peoples children. Much more than a few, printed, off color words.

Best of luck living in your bubble.

Maybe the mom should stop worrying about the words and start taking a lesson from the people and the book...she looks like she hasn't ran with her kid, let alone the buffaloes, in a while.

It's like when the PMRC tried banning albums back in the 80's. Just because one kid or one mom finds something offensive doesn't mean that it is offensive to everyone. Tom Sawyer has worse language, IN MY OPINION, than RWTB, but I'm sure as hell not looking to get in banned.

prowyanow wrote:

Tom Sawyer has worse language, IN MY OPINION, than RWTB, but I'm sure as hell not looking to get in banned.

Welcome to America!

News like this gives me goosebumps - not the fact that there is one publicity-seeking, ultra-conservative woman, who does not look like a great role-model, whining about offensive words in books, but the way that this "story" gets reported.