Blessings upon the folks at Good As You for finding this gem from the ladies of Concerned Women for America (you may recall this outfit as the home of disingenuous Senate candidate Patricia Phillips. She’s also the anti-gay activist who claimed to the Washington Post that the LCPS policy for student theatrical productions would prevent “the normalization of homosexuality,” which could only be the case if the policy were abused.)
In this audio clip, the ladies explicitly attack Equality Loudoun by name, suggesting that our members are somehow by definition not part of the category “parents” (and isn’t that kind of the point of why they don’t like this book?) They also hilariously claim that the children’s book And Tango Makes Three is “very sexually explicit” (CWA ladies do seem to have a ‘special’ problem with regard to factual accuracy). Once challenged on this whopper by Daimeon at Pam’s House Blend, Janice Crouse of CWA sheepishly claimed to have been “thinking about another book.” Good As You:
[W]hile we accept that she made a mistake, the mentality of viewing hetero-centric books in one way and homo-centric ones in another would seem to be the larger error.
Exactly, and that is the error that our friend Jack makes in his comments on this blog. To him, a book that tells a true story about a penguin family with two daddies constitutes presenting “an opinion,” while the countless books that illustrate mommy-and-daddy families and prince-and-princess stories do not. This, of course, is nonsense. All books convey a point of view to their readers.
I am underwhelmed by Janice Crouse’s note of apology. The readers of whatever tripe CWA sends out to their subscribers will not receive that information, they will simply absorb the lie about the book as intended.
CWA has pulled both the audio clip and the article from their website.
There has been no retraction of the lie they told.
I just wanted to let you know that I think what youre doing is really great and you have my full support 🙂
Two daddies? Really? I was under the impression that one male and one female were necessary for the process of reproduction.
“The mentality of viewing hetero-centric books in one way and homo-centric ones in another would seem to be the larger error.”
And why is that an error at all? It is, in general, possible for a male and a female to have offspring. It is never possible for a male and a male, or a female and a female, to do so. Homo-centric relationship are NOT equivalent to hetero-centric relationships.
“To him, a book that tells a true story about a penguin family with two daddies constitutes presenting ‘an opinion,’ while the countless books that illustrate mommy-and-daddy families and prince-and-princess stories do not. This, of course, is nonsense. All books convey a point of view to their readers.”
I agree. However, not all points of view have equal merit, and it is beyond the capacity of elementary school children to make those distinctions. (The book remains in middle and high schools.)
Which is wonderful for all the middle and high school students who wish to check it out so they can read it to their younger siblings.
Apparently you are opposed to adoption on principle, since an adopted child was not created by the parents who are raising her. The message of the book is that what’s important about a family is not whether a child is the biological offspring of the parents, but the nurturing, love and safety that a family provides. It’s a message with a great deal of merit, I think.
Thank you, Katie. I think it’s pretty revealing that groups like CWA feel that they have to make up lies about this book in order to get their base all spun up.
If you are in Loudoun, please try to make it to the School Board meeting tomorrow night, and certainly let the members know your point of view. The more they hear from constituents, the easier it will be for them to do the right thing.
“Apparently you are opposed to adoption on principle, since an adopted child was not created by the parents who are raising her.”
I am opposed to homosexual couples’ adopting, yes.
“The message of the book is that what’s important about a family is not whether a child is the biological offspring of the parents, but the nurturing, love and safety that a family provides. It’s a message with a great deal of merit, I think.”
Are there no other books at the K-5 level that have that message, without the meritless message that same-sex couples are equivalent to opposite-sex couples?
If that is your viewpoint, it is your job to convey that to your child. It’s not the responsibility of our public schools to do that for you by removing ideas you disagree with from the library. The library is for all the children.
If there are ideas that you WANT you children taught (not that you and Jonathan can have any — which is partly the point), then do so. In this instance, many parents who might object to the book were not aware of its presence. Would you not want to know that your children were being read an anti-semitic book, or a pro-NAZI book? Would you not want that idea, with which you disagree, removed from the library?
If there are ideas that you WANT you children taught (not that you and Jonathan can have any — which is partly the point), then do so. In this instance, many parents who might object to the book were not aware of its presence. Would you not want to know that your children were being read an anti-semitic book, or a pro-NAZI book? Would you not want that idea, with which you disagree, removed from the library?
Slip of the thumb — “…YOUR children taught…”
1) Actually, we did raise a child together. He’s in law school, doing quite well, thank you.
2) I’ve been clear that I don’t think ideas should be removed from libraries, even ideas that I find noxious or offensive (the world is full of ’em). As a parent, I took the opportunity, when it arose, to discuss such ideas with my child. That would be my suggestion in this case as well.
Try turning the tables (and this is an example someone related to me today, I think it’s a good one): Suppose there were a book in the library about the supposed negative long-term effects of abortion on women, admittedly a controversial topic. What if a pro-choice parent was convinced that the message of this book is harmful to young women, went through the challenge process and ultimately, through many appeals, convinced the Superintendent to remove it in order to avoid a controversy? I imagine that you might think it’s important that young women be free to read this book, and not have it treated as something that might be harmful to them.
What do you think your course of action might be? Please be honest with yourself, and keep in mind that that you can go buy the book at Borders.
1) Perhaps, but you and Jonathan did not do that yourselves — there was, necessarily, a third party, the mother, and one of you, at least, was not part of that process. Generally speaking, it is possible for heterosexual couples to have chilren together, and impossible for homosexual couples to do so.
2) “As a parent, I took the opportunity, when it arose, to discuss such ideas with my child. That would be my suggestion in this case as well.”
And how are the parents to know, generally speaking, when an objectionable book is in the elementary school library?
3) First of all, I would have a problem if such a book were in an ELEMENTARY SCHOOL LIBRARY. Second, the book would be, as this one is, available elsewhere if I wanted my child to read it. I suggest that is what the parents do who want this book for their kids — go to a public library and check it out, or go buy it yourself, as you suggest.
Since you no longer have children in elementary school, why do you even think you have a dog in this fight?
Jack asks:
For me, this is a religious question. What are we to do with our time? The Gospel directs us to spread Jesus’ revolutionary message of inclusion.
That’s rich, Jonathan! You’re a hoot!
Would you not object to books expounding MY religious beliefs about marriage and family being in an elementary school library?
Jack, I have said over and over and over again that I DO support the right of parents with your views to have books expressing your views in our elementary school libraries. For instance, see the exchange between Ed Myers and myself on this comment thread. What do you think I mean when I say that I expect and accept that there will be books containing ideas I disagree with?
What I will NOT tolerate is other parents demanding the right to remove ideas that THEY disagree with.
Words only — you have not been put to the test. They are not YOUR children.
The book is not being “banned” — it is available at public libraries, where parents have control over what their children read, and it can be purchased.
In an elementary school, the parents do NOT have control over what their children read, or what is read to them. Nor do they usually have the opportunity to explain that they think such ideas are wrong, because they do not know that such nonsense is being put in front of their kids. It is simply not practical to know and read EVERY book in the school library.
They are not YOUR kids, David. Read what garbage you want to your kids, but don’t try to slip the garbage into other kids’ brains without the parents’ notice.
my Jack, you seem upset. This book is needed precisely *because* of parents like you.
Jack, you don’t even live in Loudoun.
No, but I do have god-children there.
Then my suggestion to you is to take this opportunity to talk to them about what you believe, and why you believe it. Have they seen this delightful book? I would love to know what they think of it. One parent tells me that his son found it boring because it didn’t have any explosions or car chases in it. It’s a little young for an 8 year old, IMO.
So how are parents supposed to know ALL of the books that their children are going to be subject to in public schools?
Pingback: Equality Loudoun » LCPS on a slippery slope
Pingback: Equality Loudoun » Enabling murder
Pingback: Sorry for your discomfort | Equality Loudoun Archive, 2003-2013
Pingback: Phillips campaign falsely attributes statement to Equality Loudoun | Equality Loudoun Archive, 2003-2013
Pingback: The facts of life | Equality Loudoun Archive, 2003-2013