New Youngkin ad starring a parent who wanted Toni Morrison's 'Beloved' removed from schools because

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The NY Times Book Review in 2006 surveyed a "couple of hundred prominent writers, critics, editors and other literary sages, asking them to please identify 'the single best work of American fiction published in the last 25 years.'"

Beloved won.

Any other outcome would have been startling, since Morrison's novel has inserted itself into the American canon more completely than any of its potential rivals. With remarkable speed, "Beloved" has, less than 20 years after its publication, become a staple of the college literary curriculum, which is to say a classic. This triumph is commensurate with its ambition, since it was Morrison's intention in writing it precisely to expand the range of classic American literature, to enter, as a living black woman, the company of dead white males like Faulkner, Melville, Hawthorne and Twain. When the book first began to be assigned in college classrooms, during an earlier and in retrospect much tamer phase of the culture wars, its inclusion on syllabuses was taken, by partisans and opponents alike, as a radical gesture. (The conservative canard one heard in those days was that left-wing professors were casting aside Shakespeare in favor of Morrison.) But the political rhetoric of the time obscured the essential conservatism of the novel, which aimed not to displace or overthrow its beloved precursors, but to complete and to some extent correct them.

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/21/books/review/scott-essay.html

No one has claimed it isn't an excellent, powerful book. That has nothing to do with the very valid criticisms of its graphically violent sexual content.

And it was part of the curriculum of an AP English class - a COLLEGE level class - where the students could choose a different book to read. Yet the mother in the commercial wanted to ban the book, which is considered one of the greatest American novels.

Could this be any more ridiculous?

[Anonymous]

I’m shocked by the level of helicopter parenting here that is being humored.

My mother was a Christian fundamentalist helicopter parent before it was even socially acceptable and it would not have ever even occurred to her to lobby for banning books. I’m sure she had no idea what we were reading in school.

Oh how the times have changed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m shocked by the level of helicopter parenting here that is being humored.

My mother was a Christian fundamentalist helicopter parent before it was even socially acceptable and it would not have ever even occurred to her to lobby for banning books. I’m sure she had no idea what we were reading in school.

Oh how the times have changed.

No one is talking about banning books. The law that was vetoed would simply allow parents to be notified that a particular book with graphic content was going to be assigned in a class and to allow the parent to decide that they want their kid to not read it and choose an alternate book.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m shocked by the level of helicopter parenting here that is being humored.

My mother was a Christian fundamentalist helicopter parent before it was even socially acceptable and it would not have ever even occurred to her to lobby for banning books. I’m sure she had no idea what we were reading in school.

Oh how the times have changed.

No one is talking about banning books. The law that was vetoed would simply allow parents to be notified that a particular book with graphic content was going to be assigned in a class and to allow the parent to decide that they want their kid to not read it and choose an alternate book.

That is not what the woman in the ad was originally calling for - she wanted the book removed from schools. It's also not what the folks in FCPS are currently calling for when they want certain books removed from school libraries entirely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m shocked by the level of helicopter parenting here that is being humored.

My mother was a Christian fundamentalist helicopter parent before it was even socially acceptable and it would not have ever even occurred to her to lobby for banning books. I’m sure she had no idea what we were reading in school.

Oh how the times have changed.

No one is talking about banning books. The law that was vetoed would simply allow parents to be notified that a particular book with graphic content was going to be assigned in a class and to allow the parent to decide that they want their kid to not read it and choose an alternate book.

+1. Families have choices thanks to this law. I’m not Christian, R voter or helicopter parent. I simply want to teach and keep family values.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m shocked by the level of helicopter parenting here that is being humored.

My mother was a Christian fundamentalist helicopter parent before it was even socially acceptable and it would not have ever even occurred to her to lobby for banning books. I’m sure she had no idea what we were reading in school.

Oh how the times have changed.

No one is talking about banning books. The law that was vetoed would simply allow parents to be notified that a particular book with graphic content was going to be assigned in a class and to allow the parent to decide that they want their kid to not read it and choose an alternate book.

+1. Families have choices thanks to this law. I’m not Christian, R voter or helicopter parent. I simply want to teach and keep family values.

If you have any confidence in the family values you teach, they should not be threatened by a book.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m shocked by the level of helicopter parenting here that is being humored.

My mother was a Christian fundamentalist helicopter parent before it was even socially acceptable and it would not have ever even occurred to her to lobby for banning books. I’m sure she had no idea what we were reading in school.

Oh how the times have changed.

No one is talking about banning books. The law that was vetoed would simply allow parents to be notified that a particular book with graphic content was going to be assigned in a class and to allow the parent to decide that they want their kid to not read it and choose an alternate book.

+1. Families have choices thanks to this law. I’m not Christian, R voter or helicopter parent. I simply want to teach and keep family values.

You might want to ban the bible.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m shocked by the level of helicopter parenting here that is being humored.

My mother was a Christian fundamentalist helicopter parent before it was even socially acceptable and it would not have ever even occurred to her to lobby for banning books. I’m sure she had no idea what we were reading in school.

Oh how the times have changed.

No one is talking about banning books. The law that was vetoed would simply allow parents to be notified that a particular book with graphic content was going to be assigned in a class and to allow the parent to decide that they want their kid to not read it and choose an alternate book.

+1. Families have choices thanks to this law. I’m not Christian, R voter or helicopter parent. I simply want to teach and keep family values.

You might want to ban the bible.

Violence, slavery, prostitution, murder and so much more. Keep the kids away froom that one.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m shocked by the level of helicopter parenting here that is being humored.

My mother was a Christian fundamentalist helicopter parent before it was even socially acceptable and it would not have ever even occurred to her to lobby for banning books. I’m sure she had no idea what we were reading in school.

Oh how the times have changed.

No one is talking about banning books. The law that was vetoed would simply allow parents to be notified that a particular book with graphic content was going to be assigned in a class and to allow the parent to decide that they want their kid to not read it and choose an alternate book.

+1. Families have choices thanks to this law. I’m not Christian, R voter or helicopter parent. I simply want to teach and keep family values.

New poster here:

Then go to a private school that caters to your whims and where staff will grovel at your feet. You do not have the right to dictate what other kids learn in public schools. "Beloved" was one of the most important books in the last 50 years of American literature. Public high school kids should be studying & discussing such important pieces of American culture.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m shocked by the level of helicopter parenting here that is being humored.

My mother was a Christian fundamentalist helicopter parent before it was even socially acceptable and it would not have ever even occurred to her to lobby for banning books. I’m sure she had no idea what we were reading in school.

Oh how the times have changed.

+100

These people are horrible and, let's remember what they were doing Jan 6. Traitors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m shocked by the level of helicopter parenting here that is being humored.

My mother was a Christian fundamentalist helicopter parent before it was even socially acceptable and it would not have ever even occurred to her to lobby for banning books. I’m sure she had no idea what we were reading in school.

Oh how the times have changed.

No one is talking about banning books. The law that was vetoed would simply allow parents to be notified that a particular book with graphic content was going to be assigned in a class and to allow the parent to decide that they want their kid to not read it and choose an alternate book.

+1. Families have choices thanks to this law. I’m not Christian, R voter or helicopter parent. I simply want to teach and keep family values.

I grew in a very conservative household where my parents really did limit my reading and were always up in arms about the school reading (mostly to me, not to the teacher/school). And that is why this law is absolutely puzzling to me. My mom just read the book itself (either my copy or got another library copy) and made her decisions. And this was the 80s! You have the book and the entire internet at your disposal and somehow you need a teacher to announce some determination about the content? If you are going to helicopter, you would be much better served doing your own investigation rather than relying on this notification. And by the way, you have always been able to opt your kid out of the reading.

[Anonymous]

The lady in the ad did start out wanting to ban Beloved. Parental notification was her second choice.

I said this up thread but all the English syllabi that my 3 FCPS kids had/have listed the books that might be read and told parents they have the right to opt their kid out and get a substitute book. Pre-covid, parents had to sign the syllabus. Are Republican parents signing without reading? And then whining/screaming about it?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Ha - not at all. I've already read them and wish I hadn't. I keep asking for them to be posted because so many of you act like they're "no big deal" and not traumatic or graphic at all. So my response to that is to post them - you know, if they're not a big deal. But naturally, no one will because they're all total hypocrites who know just how bad those scenes are.

I mean, if you read Beloved and you're NOT upset, you're doing something wrong. So is your position here that 12th-graders in AP Literature should not be expected to read upsetting literature? Should parents be allowed to say, "No, I don't want my 17-year-old reading King Lear (graphic descriptions of gouging someone's eyes out), Wuthering Heights (graphic descriptions of domestic violence), Medea (graphic descriptions of murdering children) in AP Literature!"?

I'm continually amazed at the utter obtuseness of some of you. That you can even equate GRAPHIC RAPE SCENES with any of the above is pretty shocking.

So, graphic eye-gouging scenes in literature are ok, graphic child abuse scenes in literature are ok, but graphic rape scenes in literature are not ok - because why?

You’re welcome to expose your kids to as many graphic rape scenes as you like. You seem curiously insistent that the rest of us do so as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Ha - not at all. I've already read them and wish I hadn't. I keep asking for them to be posted because so many of you act like they're "no big deal" and not traumatic or graphic at all. So my response to that is to post them - you know, if they're not a big deal. But naturally, no one will because they're all total hypocrites who know just how bad those scenes are.

I mean, if you read Beloved and you're NOT upset, you're doing something wrong. So is your position here that 12th-graders in AP Literature should not be expected to read upsetting literature? Should parents be allowed to say, "No, I don't want my 17-year-old reading King Lear (graphic descriptions of gouging someone's eyes out), Wuthering Heights (graphic descriptions of domestic violence), Medea (graphic descriptions of murdering children) in AP Literature!"?

I'm continually amazed at the utter obtuseness of some of you. That you can even equate GRAPHIC RAPE SCENES with any of the above is pretty shocking.

So, graphic eye-gouging scenes in literature are ok, graphic child abuse scenes in literature are ok, but graphic rape scenes in literature are not ok - because why?

You’re welcome to expose your kids to as many graphic rape scenes as you like. You seem curiously insistent that the rest of us do so as well.

Who knew that it would be so controversial for high school seniors to read one of the great American novels in an AP Literature class?!

[Anonymous]

This whole tread is dumb plain and simple

Youngkin lied again big surprise.

This mother is absurd. Her "child" was an adult at the time
18 years old. Poor woe is me he had to read something of intelligence. He could be drafted for god's sake. Off to college that following fall.

Anyone who thinks a senior in HS can not read this book is an idot!

Youngkin = Trumpism = Destruction of VA for ever.

Youngkin is already playing fast and free with the Big lie eroding Democracy. He's a liar and he will surely destroy the state.

Shame on anyone voting for that garbage POS because that is what he is.

Hopefully, Trump shows up this week. Youngkin needs the help HAHAHAHAHA