Prude Patrol Hitting Libraries?

NEWSFLASH: Libraries across the country are suffering. People just don’t go to them very often anymore. Google and smartphones are crushing the desire for people to use library cards to take out actual paper books. Even libraries with computers aren’t faring much better, because computers are much more affordable today (if you are willing to put up with ones that can’t play the latest games.) So, to keep from becoming completely irrelevant and having to close their doors, many libraries are offering programming that may seem off the wall or over the top to some people. That means they’re going to offer programming that will make anyone with a Victorian attitude toward life faint – or want to scream.

Now that we understand this, it’s time to address a minor problem.

If you don’t like the programming that your local library is offering, the appropriate response does not include trying to disrupt it.

Some folks in Maryland didn’t like the fact that their library was offering sex-ed for kids – with parental permission. They made a website to complain about it. Good so far.

Unfortunately, on that website is information about how these people tried to stop the programming by breaking the rules set by the library for the safety of the kids who were enrolled in the program.

Not good.

Also, there doesn’t seem to be any mention of this group trying to offer “acceptable” programming choices to the library. Remember, the library is trying to get people into the building, so theoretically they would be open to hearing suggestions from everyone.

Another option would have been to look into elected positions that have to do with library management. Is there a community member board position? A political office that has a permanent seat on the board? Although a little extreme, at least pushing for a member of your group to be in a position of power in the library is far better than forcing the police to stand guard outside the library like this group did.

I get it. Really, I do. Conservatives don’t like people talking about sex, especially not to kids (even if the parents are fine with the idea.) Sure, there are people who think that parents should sit in on sex talks with kids, because they believe that kids really want to talk about that stuff in front of their parents. (Not sure where these kids are, but who am I to question someone else’s logic?)

But, conservatives are also supposed to be big on law and order. They’re supposed to be upset with people who break laws, right?

So, why were they breaking laws against trespassing at the library? Libraries are community property, but when they put up clear restrictions on use of their facilities, failing to abide by those restrictions is trespassing (or a similar offense, depending on the local laws.) The library clearly stated that adults were not welcome to attend this program. Only kids could be there, and the kids had to have written permission from their parents to attend.

The argument that the library was doing something objectionable and should be forced to stop because it is a public facility doesn’t work here. Go back to the beginning on this. Libraries are trying to stay alive, and that means programming. It also means that a sex-ed class is probably going to hit the events calendar before a quilting bee. Getting kids into the library is a hard task, and it’s fair to guess that this conservative group isn’t going to come up with a single thing that will help to do that.

But, don’t worry. When the library has to close because of lack of interest, these folks will probably blame anyone but themselves.

The post Prude Patrol Hitting Libraries? appeared first on Savannah Snark.


Source: Savannah Snark

Prude Patrol Hitting Libraries?

In Praise of Cultural Appropriation

Share

As a girl, I would ask my mother, “Why can’t I have curls?” She’d always frown a little, and remind me that our hair is straight. My grandmother would get permanent waves, and my mother ended up nearly losing her hair to a truly disastrous chemical treatment – all in the pursuit of what we did not have from birth. The irony of this was that more often than not, the girls with the ringlets that I envied would have preferred to have smooth and straight locks like my own. It is that basic envy and admiration of what we don’t have that drives the imitation of styles we see on others – what some now call “cultural appropriation.”

The real problem isn’t the fact that people are “borrowing” from the styles of other cultures, because that has been happening from the time that people started wearing clothing and adornments. Today, we have an intellectual elite class that is teaching the masses that this act of imitation is essentially the same as being photographed was to some cultures that feared it desperately because they believed the images somehow trapped their souls. The problem is that people are being told that imitating style is equal to ripping something essential from their very existence.

These high-minded individuals have failed to recognize a very basic part of being human – as human beings, we engage in mimicry. In modern society, it is a very selective process, which means that we only choose to emulate actions (or in this case, styles) we highly admire.

There was an adage that applied to this phenomenon – “Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.”

Elvis Presley imitated music from black artists, because he admired their work not because he wanted to somehow keep those artists from advancing in the music industry.

The current targets of the intellectual elites are being told they can’t make certain fashion choices, like hoop earrings, because those styles are the exclusive property of minority cultures. Those same people are telling members of those cultures that they should feel insulted if people from other cultural backgrounds want to imitate them. The entire premise is based on two fallacies: first that anything in our collective culture is the exclusive “property” of a given ethnicity, and second that anyone who chooses to borrow styles from other ethnic backgrounds is doing so for malicious or racist reasons.

Every culture on the planet at this point has borrowed from other cultures at some point, so there is no such thing as “cultural exclusivity”. Humans have been migrating around the planet for millennia, and have picked up bits and pieces of their culture from the places they have called home over the years. The intellectual elites who are claiming that there is such a thing as “cultural exclusivity” must have skipped History, Anthropology, Sociology, and Social Psychology during their studies.

The claim that there can only be malignant or hateful reasons for people to emulate each other has no basis in reality. In truth, it is in direct contradiction with more than a few theories that these intellectuals should have learned in even the most basis courses on Psychology and Sociology.

So, this entire exercise is an anti-academic and anti-scientific social movement with the simple goal of causing outrage among minority groupings. Generally speaking, such activities have historically been used to control minority factions within a society. If the minority groupings are focused on being angry at a specifically defined “pseudo-enemy” that really isn’t a true threat to them, the ones telling them that they should be angry can then gain their trust on other matters. Those “other matters” are usually laws and policies that are truly a threat to those minority groupings. In America today, that could be the perpetuation of a permanent underclass for minorities, particularly in urban centers. Those intellectuals are also opposed to education reforms that could improve educational opportunities for that permanent underclass the government and intellectuals created.

But, it’s more important to be upset about the “wrong” cultural groups wearing the fashions inspired by minority groupings, right?

Image: Dr. Umesh Behari Mathur (CC)

Share


Source: Subculture

In Praise of Cultural Appropriation

It’s a Soap Ad – Not the End of the World!

Share

In case you weren’t aware of it, many women are very particular about the products that they use to take care of their own skin (and the skin of their babies.) The makers of Dove products have made a cozy home for themselves on the market for women with sensitive skin. In case you’re wondering what that means, when you go into a store with entire aisles of soaps and shampoos, the people with sensitive skin can buy maybe a handful of products on the shelves without fear of adverse reactions.

That means burning, stinging, rashes, break outs, and all manner of other nasty things.

There’s another little problem for many women when it comes to products they like. Manufacturers have a horrible habit of taking some off the market entirely, without bothering to even attempt to replace them.

(My aunt used to say, “Never say you love something, because someone in the factory will hear you, and they won’t make it anymore!”)

Dove is guilty of removing some products, but they’re really good about coming up with a “new and improved” option that often really is at least as good as what it’s replacing. Sometimes, it really is much better.

That said, when I came across people talking about boycotting Dove, I rolled my eyes.

Nope. Not happening in my household.

When I heard why, it was all I could do to keep from spewing coffee everywhere.

Seriously? People are upset about an advertisement about mothers that happens to include a transsexual?

I believe the argument was that Dove was somehow endorsing LGBT lifestyles by just having “those people” in the commercial.

Well, not exactly.

If you watched it, great. If not, just take my word for it on this one.

No, they were not “endorsing” anyone in their commercial.

Yes, they were saying that every mother is entitled to being able to make her own decisions about how she raises her own children. (It’s safe to assume that they aren’t suggesting that can include mistreating or abusing any precious children.)

If you really want to push it to the political end, this commercial was promoting the individual liberty of mothers everywhere, period, full stop.

Dove wasn’t telling anyone how to be a parent.

Dove wasn’t saying any parent is better than another.

Dove was saying all parents (especially mothers) are created equal, and are endowed with the right to raise their children how they see fit.

Oh no!

That’s terrible!

Let’s boycott them right now, for making the radical suggestion that everyone (from government down to in-laws) should stay out of the business of mothers!

Needless to say, this is just another case of people looking for a reason to be outraged.

Share


Source: Subculture

It’s a Soap Ad – Not the End of the World!