Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, wouldn't any work of classic literature that references sexual activity get this warning? E.g. To Kill a Mockingbird, The Sound and the Fury, Lolita, and lots more.

You wish - The don't read the classics that reinforce the patriarchy. They read new books about gay sex and how minorities are targets. We're in a very sad and depressing time in history.

WTF? You’d rather go back to oppression and no voices aside from white men?

No, I'd rather go back to reading the best stories and novels ever written by anyone throughout history. I could care less about who wrote it nor who that person has sex with. It just doesn't matter. I don't judge my neighbors by their skin or their sexual preferences, and I don't judge authors by it either.

You do realize that the canon (the "classics") as you're defining it was entirely based on who wrote it. So you can say you're only wanting to read the best books, but you're using a criteria that explicitly selects only for white male authors. There is a wealth of literature that is beautiful and edifying that you will never encounter if you only read "the classics." Or do you actually think nothing worthwhile has ever been written outside western Europe/US?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, wouldn't any work of classic literature that references sexual activity get this warning? E.g. To Kill a Mockingbird, The Sound and the Fury, Lolita, and lots more.

You wish - The don't read the classics that reinforce the patriarchy. They read new books about gay sex and how minorities are targets. We're in a very sad and depressing time in history.

WTF? You’d rather go back to oppression and no voices aside from white men?

No, I'd rather go back to reading the best stories and novels ever written by anyone throughout history. I could care less about who wrote it nor who that person has sex with. It just doesn't matter. I don't judge my neighbors by their skin or their sexual preferences, and I don't judge authors by it either.

Anonymous wrote:They also assign newer stuff because if it's popular and more identifiable and you can increase engagement across the board. It's not rocket science. The 9th graders are more likely to actually read John Green than Nathaniel Hawthorne.

I've heard this kind of argument from parents for years. "My kid likes candy and not broccoli." "My kid likes tv and doesn't like to read." "I can't get my (overweight) kid to exercise and all they want to do is play video games." Parenting requires directing your kids instead of accommodating them to just what they like. Good luck with this kind of kid when they're given a Myers Psych or Stewart Calculus book to read in AP or college. Or, gasp!, they have to read Plato, Homer, Cervantes, or Paton in a humanities class. Classics have stood the test of time and, instead of replacing them, they should be added to with works that are of equal importance, relevance, and scholarship. The problem with most high school English classes is that their lists consist of modern books that are not literature in the classic sense: they're poorly written and edited, they're practically guaranteed to have typos, and whatever "theme" that's contained is often forced with predictable protagonists who all seem to speak with a 5th grade vocabulary and live in a hackneyed world. Just because it includes some topic du jour does not make it a great read in an English class that's supposed to be teaching how to read and understand difficult works, and see how different literary elements are used by authors to make cohesive arguments for a particular message. Plus the Lexile index of most of the popular books assigned these days in high school are often grade levels below the actual grade that is supposed to read them.

In the meantime, DD's class read something with some problematic content. One of which is this line in it, that was absolutely not discussed.

"I hunt the scum of the
earth: sailors from tramp ships—lascars, blacks, Chinese, whites,
mongrels—a thoroughbred horse or hound is worth more than a
score of them.”

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do schools think that it is so necessary for freshman classes to read all these kind of books with sexual content? Will freshmen English skills not grow if they are not exposed to such content at school?

Shakespeare has sexual content. I remember my english teacher pointing out a few of the sex references/quips in the 90s. Chill out.

So classically graphic!

They also assign newer stuff because if it's popular and more identifiable and you can increase engagement across the board. It's not rocket science. The 9th graders are more likely to actually read John Green than Nathaniel Hawthorne.

Anonymous wrote:Why do schools think that it is so necessary for freshman classes to read all these kind of books with sexual content? Will freshmen English skills not grow if they are not exposed to such content at school?

It's not about English skills. They think that its still 1954 and cool woke teachers are the great liberators of our youth. They believe that children need to be taught in contrast to historic social norms that it's great to be gay and this is how you express yourself sexually if you are different than your parents or siblings or friends. The teachers think they are cool and they "get it". The classic fool really. Their intentions are not evil but the outcomes for some kids are not beneficial or happy to say the least.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, wouldn't any work of classic literature that references sexual activity get this warning? E.g. To Kill a Mockingbird, The Sound and the Fury, Lolita, and lots more.

You wish - The don't read the classics that reinforce the patriarchy. They read new books about gay sex and how minorities are targets. We're in a very sad and depressing time in history.

I read To Kill a Mockingbird, Tom Sawyer, Huck Finn, 1984, and Wuthering Heights in HS in the 90's. None of those reinforced the patriarchy. They all had some very specific elelment that pushed against systemic structures that reinforced racism, patriarchy, and elitism. Seriously? Most classics end up being classics because they are well written, contain an strong use of literary techniques, and challenge the norms of society.

Greek Dramas almost all revolve around controversial topics, incest, gay sex, and the like. Shakespeare includes fratricide, lots of sex, and other adult themes.

I am failing to see how those novels/plays that you consider classics are less controversial then most of what I read in high school.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do schools think that it is so necessary for freshman classes to read all these kind of books with sexual content? Will freshmen English skills not grow if they are not exposed to such content at school?

Because it’s hip, modern and woke and the kids can relate to it better supposedly. It’s a lot easier to read than the classics too. This is basically the dumbing down of our kids.

Having kids engaged and thinking will not “dumb down” our kids. JFC.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I mean, wouldn't any work of classic literature that references sexual activity get this warning? E.g. To Kill a Mockingbird, The Sound and the Fury, Lolita, and lots more.

You wish - The don't read the classics that reinforce the patriarchy. They read new books about gay sex and how minorities are targets. We're in a very sad and depressing time in history.

WTF? You’d rather go back to oppression and no voices aside from white men?

Anonymous wrote:I mean, wouldn't any work of classic literature that references sexual activity get this warning? E.g. To Kill a Mockingbird, The Sound and the Fury, Lolita, and lots more.

You wish - The don't read the classics that reinforce the patriarchy. They read new books about gay sex and how minorities are targets. We're in a very sad and depressing time in history.

This may have already been mentioned, but we were told at back to school night that the class may read The Fault in our Stars, which is what triggered the email for us.

Anonymous wrote:Why do schools think that it is so necessary for freshman classes to read all these kind of books with sexual content? Will freshmen English skills not grow if they are not exposed to such content at school?

Because it’s hip, modern and woke and the kids can relate to it better supposedly. It’s a lot easier to read than the classics too. This is basically the dumbing down of our kids.

Anonymous wrote:Why do schools think that it is so necessary for freshman classes to read all these kind of books with sexual content? Will freshmen English skills not grow if they are not exposed to such content at school?

Shakespeare has sexual content. I remember my english teacher pointing out a few of the sex references/quips in the 90s. Chill out.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OMG OP, it's not like they're going to be reading The Happy Hooker in class.

No, but they could be assigned the graphic novel Gender Queer in FCPS.

Why don’t you post the c0ck / d1ldo-sucking illustration from Gender Queer here to DCUM, and see what happens?

I mean, since that image / material is approved for our children in FCPS, by FCPS, why wouldn’t it be OK here on a parents forum, right?

Having a copy of the book in the library and assigning it to an entire class are completely separate things, but DCUM is always exaggerating so why stop now.

No one cares about having a copy in the school library. Parents do care about why these books are showing up in the recommended reading lists that are sent out by the teachers. Yes, students don't necessarily have a pick a book from that list for their assignment, but most do because it is easier for them to pick a book from a curated list that is approved by the school/teacher.