Peek a Boo
-
Posts
5,594 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Classifieds
Store
Posts posted by Peek a Boo
-
-
Geez, Peek, you're being rude. You know what they say about people who assume ;).
I asked for a clarification of what she knew or didn't know. That's not rude-- that's basic Discussion 101. i apologized TWICE if I was still wrong.
-
Peek. Chill.
hey-- I *am* chilled. ;)
and no, sorry, I *don't* think SWB was "perfectly clear."
-
....And I certainly don't understand the need to attribute evil intent to its author! .
I never said the intent was "evil."
I said it was *deliberate*... which doesn't always equate to EVIL. ;)
and I'm sure many "don't" understand why some would find content offensive. I'd say this thread is a good time to learn to look at life from another's perspective. Learn something new. :)
-
Have to say I'm not appreciating "She deliberately produced something that she knew would cause offence" (actual quote).
Speculation as to motive, instead of analysis of what's actually on the page, isn't helpful. You can't possibly know my intentions.
Anyway this is completely wrong. Frankly it didn't occur to me that anyone who was also doing a Great Books course (Gilgamesh? Shakespeare? The Bible? Really?) would find the references offensive.
I support your right to FIND them offensive and, so, not use the book. Also you're welcome to list them for other parents. And even discuss them on my message board. (As you have)
But the speculation that I "deliberately" set out to cause offense is unkind. And also incorrect.
In any case, the book was not "written for fourteen-year-olds." It was written for adults. The Great Books course assumes, as David Hicks so rightly points out in Norms and Nobility, that high school students are anxious to become adults. Therefore we recommend, in the high school years, books written for adults. The adults who are GUIDING their high school students towards maturity are, as always, responsible for the ultimate shape of the path.
Debated jumping in on this, as I usually try to let my books speak for themselves, but when assumptions about motivation start I feel compelled to point out that the discussion has veered in an incredibly unhelpful direction.
Also you've hit me in a week where I'm particularly sensitive to assumptions about my motivations. I wish people who disagree with me/us would stick to the facts. I know, I dream.
SWB
so you're telling me that you had NO CLUE that including those references would cause some families to squirm?? Even in a Classical Education setting? really? I find that incredibly hard to believe.
I do find it more believable that "well, since the other texts include this too, I'll just follow suit and they'll have to deal with the disclaimers." Sometimes we do simply make choices that we know will be offensive to some....and decide that we're still in the right to do so for whatever reason.
Now if you literally had NO CLUE WHATSOEVER that including those quotes would cause offence, then i do indeed apologize. However, that would give me great pause as to what you do and do not realize about your audience and general American Christian culture/ societal morals.
Just because we're adults doesn't mean we appreciate that sort of content via "direct quotations" in a general history text that uses narrative elsewhere -- for ourselves, OR our kids. That we choose to study a few texts that do include sexual content doesn't mean we're asking to wallow in it [as another poster mentioned]. And it's actually been by watching discussions *here* over the years that I know for a fact that many parents
1. Aren't familiar w/ what's contained in the "Great Books" since they are JUST starting out in highschool; and
2. Aren't always fast enough readers to keep up w/ pre-reading
We can't change what's in the Bible and other texts... we *can* use tact in what we include for a 14yo.
and yes, we CAN "possibly know intentions" when we have a LOT of facts lined up from years of observation.
but I'll repeat:
if you literally had NO CLUE WHATSOEVER that including those quotes would cause offence, then i do indeed apologize.
-
Both. LOL I look for a deal on the swap boards, and if I find one, I snag it fast. Otherwise, I wait until the convention in St. Louis (they have a vendor-hall pass) and get what I need new. There are some things I want new, anyway, like consumables.
There comes a point on the swap boards, generally speaking, where the good stuff is already sold, so you have to take your chances on waiting too long.
:iagree:
but I rarely have buyer's remorse. :D
-
What is your basis for this idea of loss of freedom when we have has universal healthcare for seniors for 60 years and they are quite free to get or not get screenings and medical care????
As for having a say in how others live, I think that is over the top IMHO. Most of us as humans prone to illness and injury will end up needing health care at some point in our lives:(
loss of freedom= when we are forced to give up our money for policies we don't support. The loss of freedom isn't from the seniors, but from those funding it.
Some of us prefer to seek our own healthcare rather than force everyone else to pay for it. Not everything that "works efficiently" is necessarily right and moral.
and ok, since i got suckered into a resurrected thread, i'll go back and see what I said before, lol.....
-
The whole issue seems so ridiculous to those of us who live in countries where we have had compassionate, humane 'universal health care" for decades.
well, sure... and the rest of us sit here scratching our heads wondering "then if it's so darn great, structure a voluntary UHC for those who want their money going to it."
I'm not quite seeing how it's humane/compassionate to forcibly take money from people, but then again, I understand that a Really Big gilded cage w/ great furnishings can be quite desirable for some. I just have a problem forcing everyone to participate. If we're such a rich nation, then what's stopping the wealthier supporters of this from setting up a voluntary system??:confused:
-
Your standard disclaimer is spot on; I don't plan to use HOAW with all of my dc. I think that suggested and advised in this case are just about the same; SWB is giving advice when she makes suggestions, but I highly doubt that she expects people to buy everything she advises. I haven't known you long here, but I think that you and Peek-a-boo, who is a woman of strong opinions and doesn't beat around the bush (I've known her for a long time here) are closer to agreeing on what we can discuss about SWB's books than it seems, because I didn't read the word forced in her post; SWB does allow us to express our views on her books, and there is nothing here that says we have to buy her history books or to like them to post here. It is a forum for people pursuing classical education, too, but many of us aren't doing pure classical education. I'm not. I wanted to, but it didn't work well with my dc, so I'm doing eclectic homeschooling with a classical base. I have used some of SWB's books, so feel free to post here, but would even if I didn't. She hasn't always had all those other books out, either, so once upon a time on the old boards there was only one SWB homeschooling book that people were discussing. Of course, HOAW isn't just for homeschooling, so that's a separate subject.
I, for one, like the fact that I can read all these different opinions on the book or on any other book/curriculum, etc I'm interested in, even if there are times when I vehemently disagree (not on this one, but there have been some threads where I have bit my tongue/fingers;).) I happen to agree with a lot of what both you & Peek said, even if not every single thing either of you said, which is why I said what I did.
:iagree:
and Xander, if a parent is just starting to get into Classical Education, reads TWTM, loves it, but still hasn't started reading all those other books [that they are likely UNfamiliar with] and instead decides to start w/ a general overview [like the text in question] then they will have very little context to operate on when it comes to this.
in the HP analogy:
A: If I RECOMMEND a copy of Harry Potter to someone I know is a fundamentalist baptist.
B: SWB RECOMMENDS a copy of HOAW to someone she knows is offended by any mention of sexual relations.
I removed the "surprise" bit because as my analogy was meant to inform..... I would KNOW BETTER than to do that: there would be absolutely no surprise, and to my knowledge, SWB hasn't expressed any surprise. i don't expect her to.
personally, it sounds like you're going to a lot of work to uh, pitch a fit, about the semantics of an analogy, but I hope the clarification above helps in your understanding. ;)
"I can't see a reason why SWB should've expected anyone to ignore her advice about parental discretion and then come here to slate her for that."
REGARDLESS the vague disclaimers given, SWB-- as a *known Christian* [regardless the secular publisher] and HIGHLY REPUTED homeschool author is deliberately including explicit sexual content that SHE KNOWS many-- manyMany MANY -- deem inappropriate. i do expect good leaders to be more in tune w/ their constituents.
per your apologia scenario:
"and without bothering to find out what sort of content is likely to be contained in it,"
We aren't talking about differences in definitions. NOBODY is denying that SWB is including explicit statements about sexual acts. And yes, you probably are pretty new at this, cuz there have been LOTS of public, heated debates about Apologia, even on Apologia forums. ;) And Apologia hasn't changed much, lol. History shows the best place to air a grievance that likely won't be addressed to your satisfaction is a public discussion board... that way at least others who are likeminded can find out more about it.
You said:
There's a big problem with the insinuation that SWB deliberately produced something that she knew would cause offence and that she didn't give people ample opportunity to make an informed decision about using it with their kids until they were right in the middle of reading it aloud.
It's the bolded part that i take issue with. You're right -- it *is* a big problem. I'm not insinuating it-- I'm saying it right out. She deliberately produced something that she knew would cause offence. Whether the discovery came while reading it aloud or during pre-reading is irrelevant-- this is designed and recommended for 14yo kids.
I've given examples how sexual instances in history could be handled w/o direct quotes. Shoot-- that's not a new novel idea that I came up with-- people way smarter than i have been able to explain sexual issues w/o resorting to direct quotes for some time now w/o sacrificing intellectual integrity or academic excellence. She opted not to do that.
As you showed in your examples above:
We think the texts and programs we've settled on are the best available,
SWB/JW are up front about what their criteria are for selecting resources. Academic excellence is first on that list. Avoidance of mature content doesn't feature.
This one is the Best!! Recommended by a great lady at the top of her field! Who wouldn't want to take her advice?
NOWHERE does she even hint at offering direct quotes about explicit sexual acts that even students ready for "mature content" might /might not be ready for. NOWHERE in her disclaimers is that even addressed. Nothing about "mature content" for a 14yo and their family who might be just starting the foray into Classical Education.
Here we have "thoroughness" at the top of the list and, again, no mention of avoiding [or specifically including] sexual references or other mature content. With thoroughness as a deciding factor, one should be aware that this means there are likely to be fewer omissions in the suggested resources than in some other texts.
fewer omissions... of what?? We're teaching minor children, most of whom aren't even of legal age to consent to the acts being explicitly described. Myself and others have already laid out what "fewer omissions" tends to look like: more in depth study of political science, economics, strategy, etc. There's a LOT of just BASIC history that is left out of most texts. THAT's the kind of stuff I tend to expect "more" of.
i absolutely encourage someone to sit down and give chapter and verse where the sexual instances are as a better heads-up for parents who simply DON't have the time to pre-read everything, but still want quality texts for their kids. It's not the first time something like that has been done. As i mentioned before-- Focus on the Family has done an admirable job sifting through *known issues* and posting them in a matter-of-fact manner for parents to make a better judgement w/o wasting hours and hours of precious time. But then again, Hollywood is KNOWN for producing material that [even if "accurate"] flies in the face of most families' morals.
SWB is NOT.
yet she did. :glare:
and while we might get caught up in the semantics of how someone said what, i do hope that we can be a little bit more discerning and understand the meaning behind the asterisks, instead of focusing on the asterisks themselves. ;)
-
She just hasn't had enough to drink.What would you suggest?
according to Mrs. Mungo.... I will simply suggest More Rum. ;)
-
I'm down with men in kilts :D
Bill
:svengo:
Bill... you REALLY need to rephrase that... please!??:lol:
-
Just because many of us don't think there's anything wrong with the way PHP have done things doesn't mean that they wouldn't do something about it
well that's all fine and dandy, but the OP obviously felt this was the best way to handle it. i tend to agree with her after watching for 10 years the way SWB handles other concerns. ;)
I never said anything about the Nanny State, so that's not the distinction I was addressing.
I was taking issue with your assertion that what's going on here is about "a private individual requesting another private individual to willingly offer more heads-up about sexual commentary that the author is bound to know would cause conflict".
maybe, but since *I* was very clearly addressing the "Nanny State" comment, then my assertion needs to be read in that context.
Had someone approached SWB or PHP directly with a polite request for a heads-up, that would match up with what you're saying this is about.
......But that's not what happened.
The fact that the thread is titled "Really frustrated with inappropriate content in History of the Ancient World" and that the first post does not request anything other an explanation for this content makes it pretty clear that the OP was passing judgement on the book (and, by extension, its author), .....
This comes across as an accusation that SWB is deliberately adding this material to a subject which doesn't and shouldn't contain it.
I was still addressing the Nanny State comment. back to the difference between wanting the gvt to handle it vs handling it in the private sector.
That's not a fair analogy. The equivalent situation would be a fundamentalist baptist buying a copy of Harry Potter and then complaining that a fantasy novel includes material about magic and they have to keep skipping over bits while reading it to their child.
PHP have not hidden the nature of the book from their customers. Anyone who wants to do so can read a sample before deciding whether to buy a copy. ....There's no reason for SWB to know that someone would buy the book, knowing the subject and intended readership, and then publicly condemn it as "inappropriate".
you missed the analogy.
The whole point is that this specific book is a referral and ADVISED as part of a curriculum. Big diff from just buying a book. Now if the Baptist had bought HP on a recommendation from a Baptist Seminary and felt offended, then yes, i think you'd have a good analogy.
since there are a lot.... A LOT... of high school level ancient history texts out there that don't stoop to quoting primary sources of explicit sexual language, then i'd say that YES, there IS an implied trust, and a pretty secure expectation that this book fails to meet. and again-- if you think SWB has "no reason" to even consider thinking these quotes would be a problem, you haven't read many of her responses the last 10 years. Again: she's a pretty bright gal. She knows the score, and she knows the community. Very Well.
I never said that people shouldn't discuss HOAW on the forums. I merely explained, ... then jump to condemn it on her forums when they discover that it's not to their taste.
You did say:
But one might expect them to be able to make such decisions without condemning the book on a forum hosted by the author and publisher.
Why would one "expect" that someone can't condemn a book if they feel it crossed basic boundaries? The opposite is quite true: you seek out the author's forum [if it exists] and post there. That's how you get responses closest to the author's intentions.
part of discussion may very well be condemnation. again: SWB *knows* this. She's dealt with this kind of stuff for over ten years and continues to host this forum anyway.
-
Can you name a prominent proponent of the libertarian philosophy who agrees with a standing national military? Or a pathway to citizenship? Or favors gun control? These are just a few of the major differences between the two philosophies of libertarian and social liberal. Maybe some of the people you know who define themselves as libertarian haven't fully thought out the implications and are really social liberals?
Not that I'm a prominent Libertarian, but....
I agree w/ a pathway to citizenship. We have it. It's called Legal Immigration. ;)
If you want to discuss AMNESTY for ILLEGAL aliens you might want to rephrase "pathway to citizenship."
-
It is worth it:001_smile:
I am here and present and accounted for:D
I think it is important to show the diversity in homeschooling:001_smile:
while I am not a liberal homeschooler, I will chime in and say it IS worth it and it IS important to show the diversity in homeschooling.
I moderate a secular yahoogroup that is 100% inclusive. the key words I put on the page are designed to scare off anyone that thinks this is a Christian-only or conservative-only group.
While I am Christian, and generally conservative [w/ a heavy leaning to libertarian], we homeschool for secular reasons, and many of my own ideas wrt politics/ religion tend to leave me out of many circles:
100% pro-life [anti-death penalty regardless the age of the human]
pro-equal rights [dump any secular "marriage" definition]
fiscally conservative
not debating the YE/OE thing or baptism/communion issue
I've received heated emails from local homeschoolers baffled as to why a Christian could even consider starting such an 'ungodly' group, and we've had churches refuse to let us meet. So we're just a very active networking group that has classes at the library, parks, and via 4-H.
I gotta say, 4-H has opened a LOT of doors for us...
anyway, YES, I think it is worth it to speak up and be counted. :)
and to answer the other question that came up, "labels" are just shorthand for learning about people. They are a starting place, not a definition of the whole person. I appreciate it when people introduce themselves with some descriptives... it lets me know what is important to THEM.
-
-
No, we have an individual who is posting publicly (on a message board that can be read by non-members all over the world), decrying the inclusion of sexual content and asking why it's there.
The OP could have sent a private message to PHP, explained politely that she has a problem with the book and made whatever suggestions she cared to make about additional information for the website or whatever. Other posters who agree with the OP could have done likewise. But that's not what's happened (or if that did happen, it's certainly not all that happened).
I don't think it's fair to say that SWB was bound to know that it would cause conflict. .... But one might expect them to be able to make such decisions without condemning the book on a forum hosted by the author and publisher.
eta: clarification.... I wasn't talking about a public forum vs a private forum, I was talking about mandatory gvt regulations vs the private sector [accountability/voluntary policies]. This forum is still a private sector entity. ;)
Why send a private message to PHP, especially when "other posters" agree there's no action PHP should take? That's obviously not going to help the situation, and indeed posting her disapproval on a PUBLIC *discussion* forum has also helped OTHER posters who agree w/ the OP. Either way, it's still a private individual making a personal request vs the gvt requiring something.
Why is it not "fair" to say that SWB was "bound to know" it would cause conflict? Are you telling me that someone as studied in history and homeschooling would be so ignorant as to think that including those direct-quote sexual snippets would NOT cause conflict? really? That makes about as much sense as me handing Harry Potter to a fundamentalist baptist and then saying "gee-- how was I to know they would get offended."
Come on..... SWB is way smarter than that.
She's been around the block a few times with this homeschool controversy/styles/ and stuff. She knew.
This forum is not here to be a lovefest of minions either. ;)
I believe that SWB has already made her statement about allowing people to disagree with her books, since not everything she writes isn't conducive for everyone. So the OP posting *about the book* on a forum designed to discuss *the author's books* makes a whole lotta sense.
-
How about when everyone was circumcized and then while they were recovering they killed them all?
Really? Did you have to circumcise them first for that?
off topic......
but it does go to show that the circumcision practiced wasn't some tiny little nick. ;)
It was also voluntary.
-
For those who don't have the time to pre-read all texts, this forum is a great place to get a feel for things, isn't it? After this thread there are some who won't buy this book as a result. I can't say that I like everything in the book, but it's because I don't like everything that has happened in history.
I won't be buying the book, but not for the last bolded part. ;)
If the book is not ENTIRELY direct quotes from primary source material, then why would there be some sort of unprofessionalism or lack of academic integrity in offering a narration of sexual instances instead of quoting directly? Saying that we need those direct quotes when so much other material is paraphrased is illogical and disingenuous. The direct quote does little to truly enhance the study of *history.* Leave it for a deeper topic in a human sexuality class.
and YES-- I can find lists online that show where the tougher sexual passages are in the Bible. I don't choose those as read alouds for my children, although we do discuss them in ADULT classes. When my kids come across those passages, I either explain them in a matter-of-fact manner or ask them to set those passages aside until they are a bit older -- Lord knows there's plenty of other material to study in the Bible than sex. ;)
on one hand the Bible is completely twisted to say "hm, I fancy her, think I'll send her hubby into the front lines so that I can get into her pants."
and then a basic premise is offered like:
"references to the fact that some ancient Greek men paired up with other men"
It is my understanding that even Fundamentalists understand the need for historical perspective like that offered directly above. But to offer direct quotes about sexual acts is simply not necessary for a high school text. Sure- if YOU wanna go there, fine. Now as to the Nanny State comment, there seems to be big misunderstanding: NANNY STATE involves THE GOVERNMENT stepping in and policing stuff. Here, we have a private individual requesting another private individual to willingly offer more heads-up about sexual commentary that the author is bound to know would cause conflict. I'm not against offering something that will understandably cause conflict, [ ;) ] but when I am advising other homeschoolers I try to be as objective in my reviews as possible.
The independent review sites like Focus on the Family come to mind: I might not personally care that someone is smoking or a particular reference was made, but it's nice to know they are doing a thorough job. I would suggest the OP and others set up an independent site complete w/ paragraph context and page numbers on things that other parents might want to know about.
I disagree that a high school student "should" be ready for this type of discussion -- while 14 may be a young man, it *is* still a CHILD. A minor whose brain isn't even fully developed according to scientific standards. There's a LOT of political science, political theory, global economics throughout the ages, and a LOT of other historical perspective that can be discussed and learned w/o resorting to snippeting sexual innuendo at the high school level. waaaay more than lists of rulers and dates and events. :)
The good news is that SWB isn't the only resource for a true classical education. While I appreciate what she has done, there's more than one way to skin a cat.... or teach a kid.
-
... I feel that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and that it cannot fail no matter the subject, so I hate to see doubt cast on any part of it.
I believe it is absolutely accurate, regardless whether one defends YE/OE. What I doubt is man's interpretation of God's Word.
I liked the God/ shabby chic analogy, lol.
God is not a Deceiver-- Proverbs 25:2. He is an artist and a scientist, and He mixes both with an amazing, accurate, and creative ingenuity. :D
-
If Mary can be engaged, birth and mother a Savior at 14-15, I think I can "allow" dating around the same ages.
we don't know that at all.
I'd rather my kids wait until older ages for *marriage*, and I think it is unnatural and icky to expect them to wait that many years before developing romantic relationships.
huh.
i find the reverse to be unnatural and icky.
--------------------
I voted "when they are ready to get married" for many of the reasons already stated.
my oldest is 16 and doesn't date, per house rules [above]. He has plenty of group activities w/ members of the opposite sex, but doesn't feel the pressure of the dating scene yet. I really appreciate the ability to mitigate the negative BoyGirl social crap as homeschoolers.
-
I remember watching a movie about "Thomasina" at school about 3d grade and really liking it...
-
maybe a subscription to a cat magazine? there's usually lots of neat stories and humor in those, as well as lots of factual stuff.... and cool pics, I'm sure. :)
-
Paul's little ditty about doing what he does not want to do and not doing what he wants to do might make a good wrap around...picturing this...hmm...
:iagree:
we call that the Do-Be-Do-Be-Do passage. ;)
Aubrey, i think i get it too, and it's spot on. :)
-
Step 13: Write a thank you note!
:lol:
:iagree:
-
sorry, nevermind
I thought your comment [that I saw] was fine, and would agree with it. ;)
as I said: stereotypical doesn't equal guaranteed. :)
Short answer for why you are homeschooling high school?
in High School and Self-Education Board
Posted
because of the daily negative social crap in the schools.
the rape on campus at the party didn't help convince me otherwise either. unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be an isolated incident.
good book: Best Friends, Worst Enemies: understanding the social lives of children.