"Quietly devastating", "Brutally engrossing" Why are these appealing book reviews?

[Jean in Newcastle]

Other books that we've found clean and fun:

 

The Father Brown mysteries

Some of the Chicken Soup for the _______anthologies.  Not deep, but for my prolific readers who sometimes just wanted something to escape with, they were fun.  (My kids really really like reading Reader's Digest and this is very similar in tone and content.)

George MacDonald wrote some romance books - quite dated and honestly not so much my cuppa, but my mom and sisters really really like them.  They also like some of the modern Christian romance series that are out there.  (Romance is just not my thing even if it is squeaky clean.)

Some younger mysteries or sci-fi books like the "Benedict Society" books or the Tripods series by John Christopher (though you might want to read these yourself to see how you feel about them - ds says there is some violence and perhaps an interrupted kiss.).  I enjoyed reading them even as an adult.  

I'll ask my kids if they can suggest other books.  

 

Ds says RedWall.  

Tolkein.

C.S. Lewis (who wrote sci fi as well)

 

[Orthodox6]

I would say that she was attacked.  That is what happens often when we disagree among ourselves, and I think it disingenuous to say "No one attacked you.  No one was rude."  We, as a group of people, do attack each other at times.  I have done wrong in this way.  Truthfully I can say that it is not always ugly at the boards.  Quite the opposite, most of the time, is true. 

[Jean in Newcastle]

Dd suggests "How to Steal a Dog" and "Wonderstruck".   Please do look at reviews because your mileage may vary.  

[Joanne]

I would say that she was attacked.  That is what happens often when we disagree among ourselves, and I think it disingenuous to say "No one attacked you.  No one was rude."  We, as a group of people, do attack each other at times.  I have done wrong in this way.  Truthfully I can say that it is not always ugly at the boards.  Quite the opposite, most of the time, is true. 

 

Please show me where she was "attacked" in this thread. I just re-read the thread and I don't see it.

 

[Jean in Newcastle]

My kids also like a lot of non-fiction.  Travel books, biographies, books about Pluto and other science topics, books about crafts and cooking and sports. . . 

[Guest]

Jean, speaking of Pluto did you see those awesome new images of the mountains and canyons? Wow!

[Jean in Newcastle]

Jean, speaking of Pluto did you see those awesome new images of the mountains and canyons? Wow!

Thanks for reminding me!  I'm going to look at them right now!  

[athomeontheprairie]

Please show me where she was "attacked" in this thread. I just re-read the thread and I don't see it.

 

I just finished this thread. And honestly I can't believe I'm posting :-).

 

It may not have been anyone's intent to attack her. But from here, that's how I read it.

 

Since everyone here is typing sometimes we come across differently than we intend. What we really believe and think sometimes gets lost in a poorly phrased sentence. What we mean as open friendly conversation is lost in translation and others read it as anger or hostility.

 

Sometimes we are angry and it comes across that way ;-)

 

Not saying that is what happened here.

 

I hope this thread is salvageable and can be a good discussion on young kids reading material.

[Joanne]

I just finished this thread. And honestly I can't believe I'm posting :-).

 

It may not have been anyone's intent to attack her. But from here, that's how I read it.

 

Since everyone here is typing sometimes we come across differently than we intend. What we really believe and think sometimes gets lost in a poorly phrased sentence. What we mean as open friendly conversation is lost in translation and others read it as anger or hostility

 

Sometimes we are angry and it comes across that way ;-)

 

Not saying that is what happened here.

 

I hope this thread is salvageable and can be a good discussion on young kids reading material.

Nope; not buying it.

 

I was not (and am not) angry. Or hostile. I responded to a strongly worded opinion thread that was asking for other opinions. I didn't come across differently than I intended. My response matched the tone of the OP. She was "disgusted" and worried about the future of girls. I was appalled at the slutshaming.

 

 

It was just contrary to the OP; not attacking.

 

Momee has been here by her own report 10 years. She knows that posting forum threads necessitate a tolerance for dissension. This one is in fact mild, not personal, and congruent with her OP.

 

The fact that there is a meta discussion on this thread is ridiculous.

[marbel]

Momee, if you are still here, have you checked out the Penderwick books by Jeanne Birdsall?  In my library they are in the juvenile section but my daughter loved them when she was 15. 

 

Overall I find most contemporary fiction very dark and unpleasant.  Of course life can be dark and unpleasant. But I don't like to be immersed in it in my reading, and I don't like my kids to be either. 

[Joanne]

Overall I find most contemporary fiction very dark and unpleasant. Of course life can be dark and unpleasant. But I don't like to be immersed in it in my reading, and I don't like my kids to be either.

My dd (one of the sweetest, gentlest souls I know) enjoys dystopian lit. I don't - even The Giver bothers me. I had to teach 1984 a couple of times in the last few years and the mood and feel of it is hard to shake.

 

I am not sure what you consider contemporary but "dark" has been around for a long time.

[Guest]

Momee, if you are still here, have you checked out the Penderwick books by Jeanne Birdsall? In my library they are in the juvenile section but my daughter loved them when she was 15.

 

Overall I find most contemporary fiction very dark and unpleasant. Of course life can be dark and unpleasant. But I don't like to be immersed in it in my reading, and I don't like my kids to be either.

 

I looooved The Penderwicks. I loved Because of Winn Dixie.

[GinaPagnato]

Couldn't read past the first page because of all the detours...

 

But, to the OP's original post. I totally get it. I go to the YA section of the library and every book prominently displayed (as in on TOP of each shelf, on EVERY endcap) is about vampires, lust, darkness, death, suicide. And no, no, no, no I do NOT think this is good for young people to have in their faces every time they go to look for a book. Do you know how HARD it is to find a book that I think is appropriate for young people to read, that doesn't have as their major themes sex, blood, bodily harm? How is this helpful or uplifting or intellectually expansive for young people?

 

Whatever, I'm actually not interested at all in dissenting opinions on my point, because I'm sure there will be some of you who think I'm wrong/judgmental/prudish. Couldn't care less if that's seriously what you take away from this post. I just wanted the OP to know I totally agree with her.

[marbel]

My dd (one of the sweetest, gentlest souls I know) enjoys dystopian lit. I don't - even The Giver bothers me. I had to teach 1984 a couple of times in the last few years and the mood and feel of it is hard to shake.

 

I am not sure what you consider contemporary but "dark" has been around for a long time.

 

Sure, dark has been around for a long time.  Fiction is largely about human experience, and there is a lot of darkness.  But there is also light.  The past several years it has seemed to me that when I go to the library and look at fiction, so much of it is just dark:  family dysfunction, crime, rape, etc. Sure those are real things. But they are not in every family, not in everyone's experience.  Someone mentioned Dickens - yep, lots of darkness and death in his books.  But there is also happiness and light and salvation (thinking of Oliver Twist and Christmas Carol specifically). 

 

I certainly had no intention of implying that people who read dark or dystopian fiction cannot be sweet gentle souls.  No idea where that came from.

 

When I said I don't like to be immersed in it... that probably wasn't clear.  I look for, and have guided my kids to look for, a balance.  Read Hunger Games, sure, but also the Penderwicks - that sort of thing. 

 

ETA:  Hunger Games may not have been the best example.  I haven't read it but it was the first example of recent dystopian fiction I could think of.  From what my daughter told me, there are elements of nobility, heroism, self-sacrifice in it.  So, a poor example.  I'm trying to think of a book that has none of those elements but I don't retain the titles of the books I discard.   That's the impression I have of the Twilight series but I haven't read it nor have my kids.

[Joanne]

Sure, dark has been around for a long time. Fiction is largely about human experience, and there is a lot of darkness. But there is also light. The past several years it has seemed to me that when I go to the library and look at fiction, so much of it is just dark: family dysfunction, crime, rape, etc. Sure those are real things. But they are not in every family, not in everyone's experience. Someone mentioned Dickens - yep, lots of darkness and death in his books. But there is also happiness and light and salvation (thinking of Oliver Twist and Christmas Carol specifically).

 

I certainly had no intention of implying that people who read dark or dystopian fiction cannot be sweet gentle souls. No idea where that came from.

 

When I said I don't like to be immersed in it... that probably wasn't clear. I look for, and have guided my kids to look for, a balance. Read Hunger Games, sure, but also the Penderwicks - that sort of thing.

I really wasn't arguing with you as much as it may seem, marbel. I like redemptive, good character wins endings, too.

 

I personally "take on" the tone and mood of what I read. English was my first degree and I FEEL literature.

 

I don't want to sound old and trite, but I do worry about the quality of contemporary YA lit. However, I still value a range of topics. I don't mean vampires and death but sexuality, contextual violence, substance use/addiction, etc.

[MercyA]

OP, I skipped a lot of YA and introduced my kids to some really good but clean adult books.  For example, my kids really like "The Cat Who. . . " mystery series, which granted, do include murder because they are mysteries but are clean, not graphic and are very enjoyable in my opinion.  

 

If you don't mind murder mysteries, Agatha Christie books are also good. The Miss Marple ones are my favorites.

 

If your children like animals, they would probably really enjoy the James Herriot books.

[Guest]

Another series that my DD was into for a couple years was the Warrior Cats series. Now, youngest DS is reading them. I have only read bits of them, so YMMV, but they were great for my DD. For a while, she drew and created her own cats and wrote backstories, clan membership and personalities for her invented characters. She learned a lot about writing and character development just from reading and designing her own, kind of like FanFic.

[JulieA97]

I have found Shannon Hale YA books to be enjoyable.  No sex, some violence as they are usually retellings of fairy tales (Goose Girl for example) but lots of hope and redemption.  

 

OP-I can certainly understand where you are coming from and agree with you.  I'm sorry this took such a turn :(

[Valley Girl]

If you don't mind murder mysteries, Agatha Christie books are also good. The Miss Marple ones are my favorites.

 

If your children like animals, they would probably really enjoy the James Herriot books.

 

Another vote for both authors. As a kid/teen, I despised animal stories. I'm still not a fan. But I absolutely loved the books by James Herriot. So I'd recommend them for kids who don't like animal stories either.

[AimeeM]

:coolgleamA:

[goldberry]

Did you just say that people who don't agree with you don't have moral values for themselves and their children?

 

 

 

No.  I was referring to the specific set of moral values that the poster mentioned, which is not approving of multiple casual sex partners before marriage.  Since that was the post we were discussing, I did not feel the need to restate it.  

 

But, I think you knew that and are just trying to be divisive.  That's the kind of thing that's been going on around here lately...more picking fights that actually listening.  

[goldberry]

There seriously should be a general rule that we give each other the benefit of the doubt before attacking.  Things have sure changed around here in the past 8- 10 years in that regard.  We haven't always gotten along or agreed but in my experience, there has (almost) always been a desire to share knowledge for the sake of helping each other grow.

 

 

 

 

This.  Exactly.  It is growing very wearying lately that every word is interpreted with implied malicious intent.  There is no valuable conversation when everyone has to waste time defending those kind of accusations.

 

Here's an example...

 

I could write:  Albeto, you said that all mothers that teach conservative values are abusive!  

 

Or, I could give Albeto the benefit of the doubt that she is referring to the possibility for an emotionally abusive environment that can occur under certain circumstances, and which should be avoided.  Which is what I actually got from her comment.

[marbel]

This.  Exactly.  It is growing very wearying lately that every word is interpreted with implied malicious intent.  There is no valuable conversation when everyone has to waste time defending those kind of accusations.

 

<snip>

 

Another problem is that post must be worded perfectly or without one bit of information missing, because people will grab on to that one thing. 

 

Just an example from this thread: implying that the OP doesn't care about boys, or is overly focused on girls, because she mentioned girls.  Later she clarified that she has girls, so... she's thinking about girls.   No malicious intent toward the males.  

 

 

 

 

[PrairieSong]

Another vote here for James Herriot's books!! Also Tolkien. I loved The Hiding Place by Corrie ten Boom but didn't read it until my early twenties. It isn't YA and does show the brutality of concentration camps, the atrocities against the Jews and those who helped them, but a great story IMO. I read it aloud to my oldest when she was about twelve. I may have edited a bit, or at least stopped to discuss what was happening. Can't remember.

[Orthodox6]

Herriot's books are "good reads", albeit repetitious if one reads the five-volume series. 

[Tanaqui]

No.  I was referring to the specific set of moral values that the poster mentioned, which is not approving of multiple casual sex partners before marriage.  Since that was the post we were discussing, I did not feel the need to restate it.  

 

But, I think you knew that and are just trying to be divisive.  That's the kind of thing that's been going on around here lately...more picking fights that actually listening.

 

No, I didn't know that. I think that you are old enough to know that when you say "families with morals" (or whatever the exact quote was) you are explicitly stating that all other people lack morals entirely, and that it would have been simple enough to insert the word "these" in there for clarity if that was your intent.

 

[Carol in Cal.]

Something else I think we should be considering, in general.

 

It happens that I don't watch much TV.  I claim no particular virtue from this; it just sort of evolved.  We didn't get cable, and when the switch to digital occurred, it limited what we can see so much that it became more and more bothersome to even try to find something to watch.  

 

So last year we visited my inlaws in Sept.  The newer shows were coming on, and since the inlaws are quite frail and sedentary, they watch a lot of TV because it's one of the few things that they can still enjoy doing together.  So I probably watched more TV in that week than I normally do in 6 months, and since I hadn't really done it in a while, patterns that I might have normally missed were really noticeable.  

The main one that I caught was how harrowing and crisis-ridden it was.  Having been away from it for a while I had forgotten what it feels like to get all anxious and all resolved, and then all anxious and resolved again, etc., in half hour or one hour increments, for hours at a time.  I got tired of this pretty fast.  I don't particularly want to be harrowed by illusion more than twice in the same day, LOL.  Books do this, too, but not as quickly, and generally in a more nuanced way.  Plus visual learners (like me) don't get as much sense of 'I LIVED THIS' from books as from movies or TV shows.

 

So wrt kids, the questions I have about weird themes and lack of morals in books and other media are:  What do we want our kids to be harrowed by?  and What do we want to normalize for them, given that their brains aren't even close to being fully developed yet?

[Outdoorsy Type]

Sometimes I feel that there must be a difference in how a person reacts to dark/graphic reading material. I read several things that were too dark, and too depressing when I was young. I wasn't able to handle it as well, and it contributed to a depressed spiral. As an adult, I am better able to gage my moods to know what might be a trigger for depression. Reading is often more "real" to me than movies. The thoughts of a well written book are my own, and it does affect me. That doesn't mean I stick to squeaky clean books, I loved The Girl On The Train.

 

I do however make sure I'm in a good place mentally before I read something dark. I could see myself guiding a child (boy or girl) away from books I thought would be a negative/depressing trigger. I haven't allowed my 11yo boy to read Hunger Games yet, because I don't think he's able to handle the themes. My oldest boy read the series at 11 without a problem.

[Stacia]

Excellent books, both of them! And neither has the kind of content I'd censor from my kids, though I agree that NCFOM, in particular, is pushing the line on intense and violent for what I'd want my crew reading. By high school both would be fine, though I think adults can better appreciate the complexities and nuance.

 

(This was in re: to my post about The Book Thief ['quietly devastating'] and No Country for Old Men ['brutally engrossing']...)

 

I was really just speaking to the idea of why one might choose to read books with those descriptors. These were two books I read that, imo, matched the descriptors & why I personally enjoyed them. I wasn't necessarily mentioning these for the YA lit category (even that's what the thread started heading after a few posts). I was giving my opinion on why descriptors such as that might actually be appealing book reviews &/or lead to reading some great books. And, I think the idea of that applies to both teens & adults, as well as to books that are out there for the YA as well as adult markets.

 

Just wanted to clarify that my original post was responding specifically to the thread title, not necessarily to the posts themselves.

[albeto.]

I had no idea at all what I was entering into upon posting this thread.

 

It happens. The Hive is a vibrant environment for people who are passionate about what they do. Sometimes that spill out into details like this. Please don't take it personally.

 

I am raising daughters only.  As far as "slut shaming" the only reason I didn't mention boys was because my now grown son is off and on his own and I no longer am responsible for helping choose his literature.  I find it hard to believe the heated argument came from such an innocent statement of mine, so someone obviously is very sensitive to the subject and for that I respectfully apologize for the impression I gave.

 

I know you meant no offense. I think that's quite obvious. The problem could be the sensitivity of the poster, or it could be the insensitivity of your OP. I think it's the latter. I think any time purity culture raises its insidious little head, it's offensive. It's offensive to girls growing into who they will be (we like to through around sentiments like, "I'm free to think what I want," but purity culture and patriarchy work to undermine that in very specific, pervasive ways), it's offensive to women who are sexually misused, and it's offensive to men. Your apologizing for someone else rejecting the inherent offensiveness of this purity ideology your OP promotes, and that's what makes it sound like Tanaqui's grandmother apologizing for her granddaughter's foot being in the way.

 

There seriously should be a general rule that we give each other the benefit of the doubt before attacking.  Things have sure changed around here in the past 8- 10 years in that regard.  We haven't always gotten along or agreed but in my experience, there has (almost) always been a desire to share knowledge for the sake of helping each other grow.

 

I think for the most part, people here do give each other the benefit of the doubt. In the spirit of helping people grow, I will share that I think the offense is in the OP, not the response to it. I assume that thought never crossed your mind, and so I assume you felt rather blindsided by the whole thing. That doesn't make the responses "attacks" and it doesn't mean there's not been a desire to share knowledge for sincere purposes. It does mean that with such a diverse community, no one should expect their personal comfort level to be the standard by which everyone operates. There's a general culture here that allows for short, succinct posts, longer posts with more detail, as well as allowing for silly, irrelevant, distracting posts. We don't all share the same style, but no one should expect their own particular comfort zones will be the standard of conversation. 

 

Yes, it may offend some that I don't want my girls who are going to one day be women reading about cutting, sex, abuse, violence, bullying etc in a way that glamorizes it and no I'm not banning everything that is negative but some stuff is just too much and I don't see the need to glamorize evil.  I could have worded the OP better, point taken.  But I do have a right to that opinion - just as - say albeto - has a right to hers/his.  I don't agree and am not going to take a point by point rebuttal but I am surely not going to respond with an attitude of...I don't know.  

 

That sentiment, that you don't want your girls to be reading about cutting, sex, violence, bullying, etc is not the sentiment of the OP. The sentiment of the OP was about the moral value of progressive practices. I submit they're progressive on purpose, and with aforethought to the beneft of people. They've progressed from the status quo because the status quo was found to be without value, offensive, or detrimental to individuals and society. Ignoring the thoughts teens have, ignoring their feelings, creating an environment in which guilt is the preferred consequence to certain biological drives is detrimental to individuals and society. We know that now, and so people respond with appropriate alternatives. They did that when you were a teen, and they did that when your mother was a teen, and they did that all the way back to time unknown. They'll do it again, and this generation that worries you so much will be for your girls, the last generation in which people knew right from wrong. Then their girls will experience the cycle, and so on, and so on. 

 

I again apologize and have learned a great deal about stating my opinion.

 

If you learn anything, I hope it's about what your opinion says, what values it reflects, and how teaching your girls to embrace it will affect them. Society is showing us ideologies that revolve around purity are not working out as intended. They have the opposite effect than hoped for. 

[happi duck]

It was mentioned upthread but worth saying again...

 

YA is a genre.

 

I dislike that our library treats it as a reading level.

 

YA is just another genre choice...to take or leave.

[Carol in Cal.]

 

That sentiment, that you don't want your girls to be reading about cutting, sex, violence, bullying, etc is not the sentiment of the OP. 

FWIW, Original Poster, I read your OP to have exactly the sentiment that Albeto did not.

 

Knee jerk reactions to misread posts seem to have become increasingly common here.

[Samm]

 

Aren't you showing hostility towards women who do not share your views when you accuse them of being abusive and talk to them like you are Miss Manners with the whole "one must know what to avoid if she wants to provide a healthy environment for her children"  ?  

 

What kind of shaming is this...saint shaming? 

All this talk about unprovoked shaming ignores the possibility that any YA authors are indeed misogynists.  Not every portrayal of sexually aware or active girls is righteous and defensible in the name of slut-shaming banishment.  Maybe misogynists are attracted to this genre sometimes.

[albeto.]

FWIW, Original Poster, I read your OP to have exactly the sentiment that Albeto did not.

 

Knee jerk reactions to misread posts seem to have become increasingly common here.

 

The interpretation was not a knee-jerk reaction. I even provided thoughtful, well reasoned responses throughout this thread. Heck, one can find discussions about the effects of the purity culture peppered throughout the WTM forums. There's nothing "knee-jerk" about it. It's simply a different interpretation.

 

I suspect those who identify with a more conservative social moral code will find the sentiments in the OP sympathetic. That doesn't mean those who don't haven't come to their opinions spontaneously and without thought. That's not only a silly notion, but easily dismantled. 

[Carol in Cal.]

The interpretation was not a knee-jerk reaction. I even provided thoughtful, well reasoned responses throughout this thread. Heck, one can find discussions about the effects of the purity culture peppered throughout the WTM forums. There's nothing "knee-jerk" about it. It's simply a different interpretation.

 

I suspect those who identify with a more conservative social moral code will find the sentiments in the OP sympathetic. That doesn't mean those who don't haven't come to their opinions spontaneously and without thought. That's not only a silly notion, but easily dismantled.

 

Hello, Albeto, I did not say that yours was one of the knee jerk reactions, and in fact, to be clear, I don't believe that it was.  However, I think that you did misunderstand the OP, as I said before.  The part about knee jerk reactions was a more general comment, but I can see how you could think it referred to your post, for which I apologize.

 

On a separate note, I think that *in general* fairly extreme reactions to misinterpreted posts is a big problem here, and contributes to a degradation in tone of the board *in general*.  It's not a question of disagreement.  It's a question of straw man type arguments in fairly extreme tones.  Again, *in general*.  

 

Someone said earlier in this thread (I think it may have been Joanne but am not sure) that there is not a shift in tone but rather a shift in demographics on this board.  I would say that indeed there is a shift in demographics, but also that there is a fairly significant degradation in tone, specifically in contemptuous and extreme ways of expressing disagreement.  We have always had disagreements but we have not always blasted each other.  Again, *in general*.  Again, and this is important, NOT REFERRING TO YOUR POST, Albeto.  Or to any others in particular.  Just going meta.  

[JumpyTheFrog]

There have been several threads this week where it seemed that some people were being uncharitable toward others by immediately jumping to the most extreme possible interpretation of what they said.

[Joanne]

 

Someone said earlier in this thread (I think it may have been Joanne but am not sure) that there is not a shift in tone but rather a shift in demographics on this board. I would say that indeed there is a shift in demographics, but also that there is a fairly significant degradation in tone, specifically in contemptuous and extreme ways of expressing disagreement. We have always had disagreements but we have not always blasted each other. Again, *in general*. Again, and this is important, NOT REFERRING TO YOUR POST, Albeto. Or to any others in particular. Just going meta.

I was the one who mentioned demographics.

On a local thread level. No blasting has occurred in the thread. On a global WTM level, I do not observe a difference in the quantity of blasting.

 

I do see a shift in percentages regarding conservative/liberal issues and the heteronormative, conservative over culture is challenged - often strongly - which did not happen regularly 5 or 10 or more years ago.

[PrairieSong]

Herriot's books are "good reads", albeit repetitious if one reads the five-volume series.

I never read the entire series, only the first two, plus some of his short stories which were a fun read. I can see where the series could get repetitive, especially if read in quick succession.

[goldberry]

No, I didn't know that. I think that you are old enough to know that when you say "families with morals" (or whatever the exact quote was) you are explicitly stating that all other people lack morals entirely, and that it would have been simple enough to insert the word "these" in there for clarity if that was your intent.

 

As I stated, my post was in response to another post which referenced the morals to which I was referring.  I thought that was clear enough. 

 

And this...

I think that you are old enough to know that when you say "families with morals" (or whatever the exact quote was) you are explicitly stating that all other people lack morals entirely,

 

Actually, it would never occur to me to think that, because that is not a thought that would even come into my head.  It is perhaps revealing that it is what immediately came into your head.  Just because you may have experienced others with that line of thinking does not justify you believing that of everyone without evidence to the contrary.

 

(and just a note? Perhaps you should look up the definition of "explicit". )

[ChocolateReignRemix]

As I stated, my post was in response to another post which referenced the morals to which I was referring. I thought that was clear enough.

 

And this...

I think that you are old enough to know that when you say "families with morals" (or whatever the exact quote was) you are explicitly stating that all other people lack morals entirely,

 

Actually, it would never occur to me to think that, because that is not a thought that would even come into my head. It is perhaps revealing that it is what immediately came into your head. Just because you may have experienced others with that line of thinking does not justify you believing that of everyone without evidence to the contrary.

 

(and just a note? Perhaps you should look up the definition of "explicit". )

"Families with morals" is implying that those with differing beliefs lack morals. It isn't a stretch to read it that way when it has been said by different posters on this board that anyone who doesn't hold Christian beliefs cannot have any moral beliefs.

[goldberry]

 

All this talk about unprovoked shaming ignores the possibility that any YA authors are indeed misogynists.  

 

 

 

This is an interesting take.  Indeed, most of my objections to a lot of YA come from a viewpoint earlier mentioned, the need to sexualise every.single.relationship, and the point you make above that often the relationships are not healthy models.  Yes, it of course opens room for discussion with teen about healthy/unhealthy behaviors, but I don't know that it's good for there to be *so much* of it and so romaticised at that age level.  

[kahlanne]

 

 

. Ignoring the thoughts teens have, ignoring their feelings, creating an environment in which guilt is the preferred consequence to certain biological drives is detrimental to individuals and society. We know that now, and so people respond with appropriate alternatives.

 

 

 

If you learn anything, I hope it's about what your opinion says, what values it reflects, and how teaching your girls to embrace it will affect them. Society is showing us ideologies that revolve around purity are not working out as intended. They have the opposite effect than hoped for. 

 Just because someone's beliefs align with the purity culture, doesn't automatically mean that they are ignoring the thoughts, feelings, or environments of the teen. I believe strongly in the idea of purity before marriage and have raised my kids with the same ideals but we  discuss all aspects that affect them whether it be connected to purity or not. We are very open about sex, cutting, depression, LGBT rights, etc. If anything the fact that I believe in purity before marriage gives me more of a reason to have open discussions with my child so we can address how to accomplish this when so many things in society and within myself are in opposition to these views. Through our discussions, they can learn everything from why I believe as I do, how to accomplish purity for a long time period, and even what happens when we fail and want to return to that choice. For this reason I don't believe the fact that we are part of the purity group  equates ignoring any aspect of our teens' lives. 

 

I also disagree with your final statements. Most in the purity movement would probably claim that the downfall of society is exactly why the purity movement is so important while being even more difficult to attain in the present than it was in years past.

[TranquilMind]

You don't know the term slut shaming? Or you aren't familiar with hashtag speak?

Maybe she is too busy actually living her life to spend it on social media.

Not a bad idea, actually. 

 

(Ugh, hashtags.  A way to pretend one cares about anything. Just a pet peeve.)

[albeto.]

Hello, Albeto, I did not say that yours was one of the knee jerk reactions, and in fact, to be clear, I don't believe that it was.  However, I think that you did misunderstand the OP, as I said before.  The part about knee jerk reactions was a more general comment, but I can see how you could think it referred to your post, for which I apologize.

 

Thank you for taking the time to clarify. I do understand what you mean now. 

 

On a separate note, I think that *in general* fairly extreme reactions to misinterpreted posts is a big problem here, and contributes to a degradation in tone of the board *in general*.  It's not a question of disagreement.  It's a question of straw man type arguments in fairly extreme tones.  Again, *in general*.  

 

Someone said earlier in this thread (I think it may have been Joanne but am not sure) that there is not a shift in tone but rather a shift in demographics on this board.  I would say that indeed there is a shift in demographics, but also that there is a fairly significant degradation in tone, specifically in contemptuous and extreme ways of expressing disagreement.  We have always had disagreements but we have not always blasted each other.  Again, *in general*.  Again, and this is important, NOT REFERRING TO YOUR POST, Albeto.  Or to any others in particular.  Just going meta.  

 

That's interesting to me to see you consider this change in tone a "degradation" in general. I'm one who appreciates the increasing lack of conservative and/or religious overtones and expectations on the board, and I know I'm not alone in that. I also suspect that as homeschooling increases in popularity, and religion decreases in popularity, we'll see more of this here. It's a microcosm of what we're seeing in the nation and online in general. Not everyone appreciates conservative social codes, and we're learning the detrimental consequences of purity ideology by heart-wrenching example after example. I think it's not only nicer to see the board discontinue supporting that practice for personal reasons, but because my heart breaks for kids and teens who are routinely oppressed and encouraged to suppress themselves for a supposed greater good. Discouraging parents to keep up what we know is dangerous isn't a point of degradation, imo, but of compassion and progress. Because progress comes from incorporating new information and new ideas, I think this is a perfectly suited community for exploring these things, especially as it pertains to our children. I see this as a feature, not a bug, of using such an open arena for the exchange of information and ideas. 

[goldberry]

"Families with morals" is implying that those with differing beliefs lack morals. It isn't a stretch to read it that way when it has been said by different posters on this board that anyone who doesn't hold Christian beliefs cannot have any moral beliefs.

 

If you and others want to continue to completely ignore the *context* of my post, I'm not going to argue about it any further. I have *never* as long as I have been on this board stated anything of the kind, and have always treated non-Christians with respect.   Believe what you want.    

 

ETA, okay sorry, I see you were saying that other posters have said that, not saying I said that.  You should share a link though.  Because I remember a lot of accusations of people saying that (much like I have been accused here) but not anyone actually saying it.  I would not be in agreement with or support that statement.

[Carol in Cal.]

 It isn't a stretch to read it that way when it has been said by different posters on this board that anyone who doesn't hold Christian beliefs cannot have any moral beliefs.

Oh honestly.

 

How about you answer the specifics of the thread instead of (demonstratedly falsely) tarring the poster with beliefs that she has not expressed, simply because you associate them with arguments made about something else in another thread by someone else?  She made a clear post, someone misunderstood it, and now you're saying that that was right because of things someone else said on some other thread that aren't even related to the topic here.  That's ridiculous.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

If you and others want to continue to completely ignore the *context* of my post, I'm not going to argue about it any further. I have *never* as long as I have been on this board stated anything of the kind, and have always treated non-Christians with respect. Believe what you want.

I didnt say you did or even remotely imply it. BUT that is why when someone sees the phrase "families with morals" (which appears to be breaking families into two groups: with morals and without) they can leap forward with a meaning not intended by the poster. The reader is jumping to conclusions, but the poster bears responsibility for using black and white phrasing when they intended more nuance.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

Oh honestly.

 

How about you answer the specifics of the thread instead of (demonstratedly falsely) tarring the poster with beliefs that she has not expressed, simply because you associate them with arguments made about something else in another thread by someone else? She made a clear post, someone misunderstood it, and now you're saying that that was right because of things someone else said on some other thread that aren't even related to the topic here. That's ridiculous.

Again, I didn't accuse anyone of anything. I was explaining why more was read into a phrase than intended. There isn't any right or wrong here, but there is a lack of clear communication.

[goldberry]

I didnt say you did or even remotely imply it. 

 

Sorry, I was editing my post as you were posting.

[Carol in Cal.]

Thank you for taking the time to clarify. I do understand what you mean now. 

 

 

That's interesting to me to see you consider this change in tone a "degradation" in general. I'm one who appreciates the increasing lack of conservative and/or religious overtones and expectations on the board, and I know I'm not alone in that. I also suspect that as homeschooling increases in popularity, and religion decreases in popularity, we'll see more of this here. It's a microcosm of what we're seeing in the nation and online in general. Not everyone appreciates conservative social codes, and we're learning the detrimental consequences of purity ideology by heart-wrenching example after example. I think it's not only nicer to see the board discontinue supporting that practice for personal reasons, but because my heart breaks for kids and teens who are routinely oppressed and encouraged to suppress themselves for a supposed greater good. Discouraging parents to keep up what we know is dangerous isn't a point of degradation, imo, but of compassion and progress. Because progress comes from incorporating new information and new ideas, I think this is a perfectly suited community for exploring these things, especially as it pertains to our children. I see this as a feature, not a bug, of using such an open arena for the exchange of information and ideas. 

This is interesting, but another example of a straw man, as you are attributing to me things that I did not say.  I did not argue for conservative or religious overtones or expectations on the board.

 

What I argue for was respectful disagreement instead of setting up straw men and being contemptuous and extreme in expressing disagreement.  The degradation in tone is in the switch from that first mode of expression to the other.  And I do, very strongly, regard it as a degradation.

 

I feel like you used my post as a jumping off point for a lecture you wanted to make that did not really pertain to it, not to answer it.  I do that sometimes but I try to make it clear when I do.  I don't always succeed.