The World in the Satin Bag has moved to my new website.  If you want to see what I'm up to, head on over there!

Tuesday, June 21, 2011

Get Your Parenting Off My Metaphorical Child (Young Adult Lit B.S.)

Imagine for a moment that I am happily married and have a lovely 12-year-old child who likes doing jumps and learning tricks on his BMX bike.  Because we don't have billions of dollars, we can't afford to buy our imaginary child the best BMX bikes, but we're very fortunate to live in a town with an awesome bike library where kids can go to borrow all kinds of bikes.  Tandem bikes.  Normal street bikes.  Bikes with little bells and baseball cards in the spokes.  Pink bikes with little tassels and red bikes with racing stripes.  They also carry BMX bikes.  You know, the kind with the little metal poles on them for grinding and what not.  I may not fully understand BMX bikes or why my child wants to jump off boards leaned up against cement parking stops or grind off rails, and so on (well, I do, because I did similar things as a kid, but let's pretend otherwise for now), but we've talked talked about such things and we're there for our child when he or she needs us.

You've got the image in your head now, right?  Happy little kid doing semi-dangerous tricks on a bike, falling and hurting him or herself, talking to mommy and daddy (or daddy and daddy, as is always possible in any analogy) and learning life lessons, as is the domain of parents?

Good.  Now I want you to imagine this:  my next door neighbor, who may be a man or a woman, but almost always a very grumpy, controlling person, wanders over and tells my child that they aren't allowed to ride on BMX bikes, because they are dangerous and inspire dangerous behaviors
and what not.  My child, obviously, ignores these people and continues pursuing BMX biking, until those grumpy neighbors show up at Town Hall and try to get BMX bikes banned from the bike library using the same argument.  After all, kids shouldn't be BMX biking!  It's dangerous.  They could get hurt or scarred or something, right?  And the grumpy people don't want their kids exposed to that kind of thing.

The rest of us cry "censorship," while they say "well, it's just parenting."  Let's pretend that the dictionary has nothing to say on this matter.

With all that in your mind, what do you think I would say to such people?

If you guessed "please, go fuck yourself," then you would be right.

Your job as a parent ends with your child.  You have no right telling my child what he or she can have access to (or say the same to me), nor do you have a right to remove materials from publicly accessible spaces in order to fulfill your narrow moral agenda or to tell me, as a parent, what I am allowed to give my child.  (This does not extend to materials which are illegal, such as child pornography.)

So when Ru Freeman (a supporter of Gurdon, who I talk about here) at the Huffington Post says
As the parent of three avid readers, I agree with Meghan Cox Gurdon's point that what is considered "banning" in the book trade is known in the parenting world as doing our job.
I have to say:  get your parenting off my metaphorical child and please, go fuck yourself.

Parenting is the act of monitoring what your child does and access to.  It does not extend to monitoring my child's access to materials, whatever those materials may be.  You are certainly allowed to tell me that I cannot molest or rape my child, or sacrifice them for a religious ceremony, lock them in the basement without food, beat them, and so on.  You have that right because those behaviors are detrimental to the well-being of the child.  But reading a book only has detrimental consequences when people who are supposed to be parents fail to act like parents when their children are exposed to things beyond their scope of knowledge.  This is precisely why the furor over Janet Jackson's semi-nipple slip elicited absurdity.  Parents weren't really concerned about a boob being on the TV; if they were, they would have been upset with the overt sexual nature of Janet Jackson's entire set at the Super Bowl.  No, what they were pissed about was the fact that they suddenly could not avoid having to be parents when little Timmy or Jenny wondered what had happened on the screen.  And I have no doubt that this is the same kind of policy of avoidance that governs book bannings.

I don't see much point in going into the substance of Freeman's post.  Most of her arguments are either anecdotal or contain serious errors of logic.  For example, she frequently sites how young adults who are starving don't want to read books about starvation (she actually calls them children, which is another issue I've railed against).  That may or may not be true.  I don't know.  But that doesn't mean that other young adults don't want to read a book about other young adults battling starvation.  This is a piss poor example precisely because reading such a book might make a young adult more willing to do something about it.  People have been compelled by literature to do less and more, and if something good comes from reading a book on suffering, it doesn't seem to me that there is much of a problem.

But when it comes down to it, what Freeman and Gurdon do is argue by fallacy (reading dark books will destroy young minds, even though I've yet to see a study that conclusively supports this assertion), reduce young adults to lesser people (i.e., calling them children), and arguing for censorship by way of claiming that book banning is parenting.

And to such people I can only repeat myself:  please, go fuck yourself and keep your parenting within your family.

Or if you'll accept a severe reduction, there's this comment by Jenni Langlois:
Restrictin­g what your children read? Parenting.
Restrictin­g what I read? Censorship­.

See the difference­?
Amen, sister!

Related Posts by Categories

Widget by Hoctro | Jack Book


  1. total agreement!

    as an addition: parents are not supposed to try and keep everything that is not for children like violence, hardcore sex from their children and never talk on the subject...

    you cant "protect" your child from the internet, if it wants to look at porn, then it will. if it wants to see 18-rated movies it will see them.
    it won't help to pretend those things do not exist or "ban" them (as long as they are not illegal, and thats a whole different debate)

    as a parent you have to talk about those things with your child. and parents have to ask themselves: Why is hardcore sexual content dangerous for a child? why shouldn't it be confronted with brutality and violence? and then, if you find and answers you have to tell your children these things.
    "you may watch porn in the internet, i can't help it, but know what it is about, know that these are actors, this is not how your sexlife is supposed to like..." and so on.

    btw: it's always interesting how americans kryptonite is nudity while germany's is violence in film and videogame...
    no one cares for tits here, but jump when there is blood in the game...
    and in the states a nipple or are semi-naked breast is the devil =)

  2. Exactly! You have to talk to your child. Explain why they can't look at porn, or why a violent movie is just make-believe, etc. etc. etc. When you get to the tough subjects, you can't shy away when they are teenagers. Just to be clear: we're talking about teenagers, not tiny children, who should be protected from the darker things of life at that age simply because they aren't capable of fully understanding everything.

    In America, we're more concerned by what some see as moral depravity, which is usually sexual in some way. Rape, sex, nudity, and related things. It's not just nudity, but the behavior associated with it, because even conservative parents, more often than not, can appreciate nude art, such as the old Roman statues and the like.

    It makes sense that Germany would be concerned with violence, though. The present of the country is still mired by its violent past. WWI and WW2 were not that long ago, and WW2, no matter how old, will not be forgotten or ignored for a long time. There's a lot of violence in the U.S., but we've handled a lot of it differently: i.e., we have a tendency not to accept our involvement in the extermination of other people or the destruction of their way of life, etc. But that's my postcolonialism academic talking.