In a must-read piece at BigHollywood, my friend Charles Winecoff explores an aspect of the Kevin Jennings kerfuffle that we have only touched on here and which other conservative bloggers (save perhaps Ed Morrissey) have all but ignored. Not only does Charles call out Media Matters for their name-calling and bias (they’v been the left-wing outfit taking the lead in taking on the conservative blogs which have brought Jennings’s unsavory literary recommendations to light), but he also takes GLSEN (and by extension Jennings) to task for presenting a politicized view of homosexuality:
But what’s equally disturbing is the deadening, inhuman language of race/gender politics that is being foisted on unsullied, impressionable minds. Teenagers should be exposed to the colors, ideas, moral quandaries, literary innovations, and expansive worldviews of great authors – gay and straight, black and white, male and female – not the narrow, detached, theoretical manipulations of bitter Marxist hacks.
This omnipresence of PC rhetoric leads Charles to ask:
More importantly, where is the art? Where are the profound, humanistic thoughts that would – and should – qualify this as literature fit for school kids?
It ain’t just the sexual references which make this stuff so inappropriate. And Charles reiterates the point that other bloggers have made about how the material that has recently come to light is indeed most inappropriate for schoolchildren:
In 2007, Camenker [Brian Camenker, the outspoken leader of MassResistance, the pro-family group based in Massachusetts] complained that, ”A federal judge ruled that schools can show picture books to elementary school children about homosexual romance.” If only the GLSEN-approved books stopped there. Instead, these clunky tracts neglect love in favor of (far less universal) sexual practices that have nothing to do with the birds and the bees – and everything to do with (what is very often) compulsive adult behavior better suited to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders than to a seventh grade reader. . . .
“Tolerance” pushers have taken the intimacy out of sex and love, and turned the hardened, clinical dregs into a grim manifesto.
This is not the first time we’ve see gay activists promoting a version of sex without emotional connection. But, it’s more than just about sex, it’s about politics as well. “Schools,” Winecoff asserts, “do not need to be ‘queered.’ Gay kids are still kids (who deserve the same respect and protection as their peers).”
Read the whole thing.
“Teenagers should be exposed to…[the books we like], not the [books we don’t like]…”
There, fixed that….
Is the GLSEN list meant to be a comprehensive list of what a gay kid should read? Or just a list of helpful resources that they would otherwise not be aware of?
“everything to do with (what is very often) compulsive adult behavior better suited to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders”
[groan]
You can tell the author here is not someone who is seriously interested in convincing anyone of anything. I mean really now – making reference to that book, in the context of gay issues, is pretty much a big ol’ middle finger of an argument. Yeah, maybe the conservative thing is to put gays back in the mentally disturbed category after all.
I halfway agree with you on this whole kerfuffle. But by mentioning the group Mass Resistance in a sorta positive light, you lose credibility with me. You do realize that this group has been classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center & Mr. Camenker has had several run-ins with law enforcement officials? I’m jus’ sayin’.
You do realize that this group has been classified as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center
Big Whoop. The SPLC calls anybody to the right of the ACLU a hate group.
I thought the SPLC was a hate group?
#1: “Is the GLSEN list meant to be a comprehensive list of what a gay kid should read? Or just a list of helpful resources that they would otherwise not be aware of?”
Neither, Talking Points. It’s a list of books that the GLSEN peddles to K-12 educators to read to or assign to ALL of their students. That’s the point. The list is on their website alongside free curricula and lesson plans that they offer to educators for use with their K-12 students.
So, in other words, it is not meant to be a comprehensive list of what a gay kid should read. Which renders the objections in the quoted passages as totally off the mark.
In other words, it’s a list of pornographic books that gay activists think are suitable for middle schoolers.
Um, Tano, whether or not the list was meant to be comprehensive, the issue remains that it includes material inappropriate for teenagers.
Are you incapable of acknowledging there are extremists on the left who should not serve in the federal Department of Education?
#6: “So, in other words, it is not meant to be a comprehensive list of what a gay kid should read. Which renders the objections in the quoted passages as totally off the mark.”
Wrong, Talking Points. The list contains books that are poor choices for gay AND straight students not just because of their sexual content, but the fact that the sexual content is of the compulsive, disconnected, meaningless variety. The point is that the books expose straight kids to compulsive, seedy acts of homosexuality for the sole purpose of exposing them to homosexuality, and exposes gay kids to compulsive, seedy acts of homosexuality that suggests to them very early in life that it’s probably best to start letting go of any romanticized notions of intimacy and commitment between members of the same sex that they might have. So, in the end, it does nothing positive for any of the students, gay or straight.
That’s what I was going to ask, along with a demand that Turdo state here and now that he supports giving this material to children to read.
TGC,
Go crawl back under your rock. You of all people asking me questions like this! I assume you and your pederast friends would support a lot more than just giving these kids books…
@11:
Note the non-responsive response from Tano.
“Are you incapable of acknowledging there are extremists on the left who should not serve in the federal Department of Education?”
Sure Dan, I am sure that there are extremists on the left that should not be in the DOE. Just not convinced that KJ is one of them.
and you find none of the actions of his outfit troubling?
Oh, I am sure that his organization, like all human endeavors, have made their share of mistakes – and hopefully learned from them. But in general, they are doing good and important work, and really do not deserve the third degree treatment by the rightwing smear machine.
Tano, are you deliberately trying to embarrass yourself by doing exactly what I predicted you would do only a couple of hours ago? You REALLY need to read the other recent threads before you comment Tano, because this is the SECOND time that you’ve verified just what a predictable little puppet you are. A couple of hours ago, The_Livewire and I had the following exchange under the post titled, “The Kevin Jennings’ Kerfuffle & the Silence of the MSM, Continued”:
#6: I’m impressed, found something even Tano won’t defend it.
Comment by The_Livewire — December 15, 2009 @ 9:46 pm – December 15, 2009
#7: #6: Let’s not be hasty, The_Livewire. If the conservative blogs stay on this story to the point where Obama is pressured to say something in support of Jennings (or, alternatively throw him under the bus), Tano will immediately take whatever baton Obama hands him and RUN WITH IT (or, more likely, light the ends of it on fire and start twirling). Tano will defend ANYTHING as long as Obama tells him to. The issue of right and wrong in this scandal is inconsequential to him. He’s just waiting for his orders.
Comment by Sean A — December 16, 2009 @ 10:34 am – December 16, 2009
Well, as expected, on this thread, you’ve been uncharacteristically coy and non-committal, refusing to provide definitive and unequivocal responses to Dan and TGC’s legitimate questions. Clearly since Obama and the MSM are pretending that the scandal doesn’t exist, you don’t know what position to take because you haven’t received your marching orders from the White House. As I just indicated this morning, you’re not trying to decide whether the list is right or wrong. You’re waiting for Obama to TELL YOU if it’s right or wrong. That’s why, for the moment, you’re “not convinced” that Jennings should not be in the DOE. Big surprise, you’ll neither condemn him, nor defend him. I’m sure you’ll take a staunch, principled, uncompromising position on the issue when and if the White House does. But until then, please be aware that your refusal to address the issue head-on has once again verified exactly what everyone thinks about you, Talking Points.
#15: Hilarious. More waffling. The DOE has certainly made its share of mistakes because nobody’s perfect. But let’s not be too hasty and allow them to be railroaded by right-wing smears. Is that basically your position, Tano? Well done–allow for the possibility that mistakes were made just in case Obama decides to throw Jennings under the bus, but don’t commit to any particular mistake in case you have to defend it later (if Obama comes out in support of Jennings). Mention the possibility of “right wing smears” (gotta get it in there somewhere), but don’t unequivocally condemn the scandal as a “smear campaign” because you might be painted into a corner when all of it turns out to be true.
Wow. Tano, are you capable of even deciding what sandwich to order at a deli without first being briefed by a committee regarding which sandwiches on the menu are acceptable and which ones are not?
…and the cheap woman of ill repute who queefed you into the world. I have no pederast friends, undoubtedly unlike you since you refuse to condemn the despicable activities of Jennings and GLSEN.
“…and the cheap woman of ill repute who queefed you into the world.”
Wow. You just can’t help yourself can you? I must admit, I am beginning to feel a bit sorry for you. Try to get a grip, ol’ fart. How many more times is this temper of yours going to get you in trouble – reveal to the world your utter depravity – before you wise up and get some help? Or at least take a long break from dealing with other people…