Children’s book outrages parents — themorningcall.com
Storytime ceased abruptly when the picture book Eileen Issa was reading her 2 1/2-year-old son surprisingly ended with two men marrying and smooching.
The tale about a disgruntled queen who demanded that her son marry a princess looked like the average children’s book to the mother of two when she scooped it up along with about nine others at the Lower Macungie Library. She had no idea the book has been the subject of a federal lawsuit and controversy in other parts of the country. Since that day, Issa and her husband, Jeff, have demanded that the library take it out of circulation. The book will remain on the shelf despite the Issas’ complaints and about 40 signatures they’ve gathered from residents who agree. The library’s board of directors on Thursday denied the couple’s request for the second time and the township supervisors, who appoint the library directors, have chosen not to overrule the decision.
”I just want kids to enjoy their innocence and their time of growing up,” Jeff Issa said, explaining his persistence. ”Let them be kids and not worry about homosexuality, race, religion. Just let them live freely as kids.” ”King & King” is in the children’s corner of the library. The only mention of its homosexual content is a small reference on the copyright page. The library’s computer system also notes the classification.
I have mixed feelings about this, banning this book is one thing, but seriously, should it be in the children’s section of the library?
Mister Mustard you continue to misrepresent the facts. there is no sex in this book, only two men kissing. using your logic, if a man and a woman kiss in a book, then heterosexual sex is taking place, which then must be explained to children.
you also keep comparing homosexuality to beastilty. this doesn’t quite fit with claims of tolerance.
as i have pointed out you do have a choice in what books you kids read. why you are so interested in giving up that right confuses me.
>>there is no sex in this book, only two
>>men kissing.
Oh. I see. Are you really claiming that it’s not a metaphor for one guy fucking the other one up the ass?
>>why you are so interested in giving up
>>that right confuses me
I have no interest in giving up any rights, including that right. My only point is that same-sex marriage is far enough from the mainstream of McMansion USA right now that it might be nice of town libraries not to put that stuff in the toddler section. Kinda like Clinton’s “don’t ask, don’t tell” law. Not perfect, but suburban America isn’t ready yet to explain fudge packing and rump wrangling to their 2-year-olds.
Sorry if you think that’s homophobic.
#31 – I was going to call you an idiot, but I’m still waiting for you to say, “Ha! Just kidding!”. I hope you’re kidding. I can’t imagine so much stupid could be in one man’s head.
Oh, wake the fuck up.
There is nothing “homophobic”, prejudicial or discriminatory in keeping children’s exposure to topics beyond their understanding to a minimum.
Teaching kids the heterosexuality is the only “normal” lifestyle is dishonest and prejudicial, sure – but presenting it as the usual, most commonplace and expected lifestyle is far from bigotry.
“Sometimes, men like other men and women like other women.” OK. But going any further than that, such as suggesting there is no difference, amounts to indoctrination. The majority of humans are, and always have been heterosexual, and 5000 years from now, that will still be the case. Being aware of that reality will not make a child develop into a homophobic adult.
Don’t kid yourself; just as there are militant str8s who want kids improperly brainwashed away from homosex, there are also gays who would certainly teach every child that being hetero is evil, if they could get away with it. This “they all wanna recruit our children” shit is a paranoiac boogyman, but there is a minority who actually do – and one way to do it is to get pro-gay propaganda in front of kids before they’re capable of understanding what they’re seeing.
Letting kids know that issues have two sides can be done long before it’s appropriate to expose them to arguments in favor of EITHER side.
Notice how many gays have managed to exist, despite being brought up in the absence of pro-gay children’s books? Didn’t seem to prevent them developing into gay people, so how is it going to hurt today’s kids? Huh?
Pffft.
No. It’s not a metaphor for any particular sexual pactice any more than when Snow White marries her Prince it is a statement on whether they like to do it doggy style. Fairy tales are full of Princesses being swept off their feet by or kissed by or marrying their handsome Prince. No one that I know of feels obliged thereby to explain “the birds and the bees” to their two and half year old. Why should you feel that two Princes or Kings marrying should force you to blurt out your understanding of homosexual practices to a child?
Heavens, in my experience as a parent, youngsters who actually meet a lesbian couple with children don’t ask how that is possible. I confess I have no experience with children encountering the concept of same sex marriage, romance or couples in children’s books–such books were pretty well unheard of when my boys were that age. But encountering the concepts in real life went pretty much unremarked on. Of course, our social circle includes openly gay, bi, transgendered people. But that’s pretty much the point. If grownups don’t get all bothered and weird about adult things the kids pretty much don’t worry about them until they become appropriate to their own lives. Kids verging on puberty are full of questions about sex, but six year olds and two and a half year olds just aren’t.
On the other hand, young people with two mommies or daddies do notice when nothing they read or see in popular culture resembles their own family. Giving them a few books and the occassional nod in TV shows isn’t that much to ask.
Just my two cents worth as a proud citizen of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts–you know the state with the lowest divorce rate, because we hold marriage to be so important.
Ya gotta know that if there had been a “children’s book” praising Hitler, the KKK, or Islamic terrorists, it wouldn’t even make it into print. Let alone be allowed in any public library. And rightly so. But wave the pink flag, in some poor excuse of a bedtime story, and it’s considered progressive storytelling. It’s all a matter of politics, and kissing up to whichever block of voters is perceived as the most likely to object or approve of such things. Apparently the Gay vote has grown in numbers enough for the politicians to respond favoribly to their lifestyle. And if in the future, there are a huge number of child molesters (who vote), they’ll have to think twice about stepping on their lifestyle expressions.
From the title I thought that it might be about Bush senior and the other one.
Cheers
Aah.
Along comes Glenn E to contribute an irrational smear for a Sunday morning.
So, Glenn; do tell, buddy, how ordinary American citizens, same as everyone else with the exception of which gender they prefer, are the same as “Hitler, the KKK and Islamic terrorists”. Oh, and also “child molesters”.
Your heart really in this rabid hatemongering smear, or are you just trolling as usual?
IOW, are you being an asshole – or are you being an asshole? Inquiring minds want to know!
Are there children’s books that explain why priests REALLY like little boys? Or a book that discusses why church people might show up at your dads funeral after serving in Iraq saying he’s going to hell? These are the books that need writing.
Wait, are you telling me that a book called “King and King” might be about gay men?
Umm how naive do you have to be not to have at least a little clue about the storyline of the book?
Personally, I’m a lot more insulted that the library has so many books that think royalty is a great thing than I am about it having books about people who love one another.
Kids do not care about homosexuality, race, or religion. Prejudice is something they learn from their parents. The best way to let the kids be kids is for Jeff Issa and his wife not to make such a drama of this.
”I just want kids to enjoy their innocence and their time of growing up,” Jeff Issa said” “Just let them live freely as kids.”
Maybe they could worry about the kids in el Salvador that work in Nike factories or all the kids with HIV I guess they also have a right to be kids.
And by the way isn’t it obvious from the book cover that the man is gay -who else would dress like that ? its like not seeing that Liberace was gay
Hey Guise!
The thing I love about the interwebs is that anyone can come and act like an idiot all the while pretending they are some kind of expert and berate anyone who is obviously mentally retarded for not agreeing with them. ALL CAPS IS THE BOMB ALSO, NEVER CAN HAVE ENOUGH!111ELEVEN==aside
out
well they should never have to ‘worry’ about religion, race or sexuality… but if they ‘learn’ about it early enough they won’t be the ignorant hate mongers that we’ve all come to loath
>>On the other hand, young people with
>>two mommies or daddies do notice when
>>nothing they read or see in popular
>>culture resembles their own family.
I imagine that young people whose parents are the King and Queen of Siam, or whose parents have been executed for treason, or whose parents are the richest people in the world may also notice that very little they read or see in popular culture resembles their own family too.
Big woop. Gay PEOPLE make up 1% – 10% of the population. MARRIED gay people make up a far smaller number. Married gay people WITH CHILDREN make up an almost infinitisimal proportion of the population (high-profilers like Rosie O’Donnell and Dan Savage notwithstanding).
#36 points out a good, simple litmus test for this kind of appropriateness in a children’s section:
If the story were about a princess instead of a prince, who marries another prince and kisses once, would we care?
There’s this idea pervasive throughout some of these comments that talking about gay couples = talking about sex, which makes about as much sense as talking about straight couples = only talking about sex.
Also, while Mister Mustard makes a good point about the actual incidence of gay marriage (yes, we’re talking about a very small number of people here), I think the analogy breaks down with the actual people he’s comparing against.
Royalty, or very wealthy people, have little to worry about or care what others think of them. They’re filthy stinking rich (not putting them down, just envious). It’s not like most others’ opinions will stop them from doing what they want to do.
But most others’ opinions can and do prevent gay couples from doing what they want to do (ie. marry, get decent housing, obtain mortgages, etc.).
This children’s story is not about sex, it’s about simply trying to reduce unnecessary bias.
I would imagine that if this children’s book were about a black/Asian straight couple instead, while also rare, it wouldn’t get quite the amount of attention this particular book is.
The reason we read new books is to hear a new story. The fact that it is a new story means you don’t know how it’s going to turn out. To complain when the story doesn’t go the way you want is foolish.
If you don’t want new stories, just read the same old ones over and over again–don’t check out or buy new ones.
You should discuss your values with you kids so they know where you stand. The will be exposed to other viewpoints and that’s really quite alright. Even if you haven’t talked about homosexuality with your kids the right story might spark the conversation.
So they threw “Huckleberry Finn” out of the curriculum(can’t use the word nigger), and replaced it with this?
Mr Kyu, I have to disagree. Stories about princes kissing princesses ARE a metaphor for doing it doggy style (or the position of your choice); it’s just that heterosexual couples (and their resulting sex) are so commonplace that it doesn’t raise any questions on the part of pre-schoolers regarding the technical details of what follows the kiss. They see the common-folk equivalent of princes and princesses surrounding them at the grocery store, in school, in the neighborhood, and everywhere they go. Princes coupled with princes are somewhat less common.
And that requires, in many cases, a more detailed explanation, which might be better provided when the children are older, or when families with same-sex parents are as ubiquitous as “traditional” families. It’s kind of like the Bill Clinton/ Monica Lewinsky blow-job affair. Lord knows I have no beef (hot, or otherwise) against oral sex, but it seemed a little creepy for parents to have to start explaining the details of orogenital gratification to prepubescent children who were seeing it splashed all over the headlines. As Pete Seeger said in his timeless interpretation of Ecclesiastes 3, verses 1–8, there is a time for every purpose under Heaven. And I’m not sure that the time to be discussing fellatio, cunnilingus, or the details of how two men reproduce is when kids are being potty trained.
If the gay parents of toddler children are really that concerned about having their pre-school kids read about couples just like them, they could always BUY the book and read it at home. You can get it for $8.85 with free shipping from amazon dot com (MSRP $14.95). I’m not suggesting the book be banned; just that the library put it somewhere other than in the pre-school section.
MM
Issues of sexual orientation aside, where do you think it should be put in the library? It is not Teenage or adult reading level fiction. the book is not non-fiction or history, or science. This book is written at a particular reading competency level, and that is 6 and up: kids. The children’s section is the only reading level appropriate section to keep this book in.
Now on to orientation issues. I have read a lot of “they married and lived happily ever after” books to a lot of children. I have never once had to explain to one of my students anything about sex (and I have worked PreK-5th). None have ever asked me if Snow White and Prince Charming “do it” much less how Snow White likes to take it. Just because it is two men marrying in the book does not necessitate the explaining of “fudge-packing” or “muff diving” to the kids. Simply saying that they love each other answers any questions. Your thought that this will inevitably lead to a sexual discussion is simply incorrect.
>>I have read a lot of “they married and lived
>>happily ever after” books to a lot of children.
>>I have never once had to explain to one of my
>>students anything about sex.
That’s because marrying and living happily ever after is the cultural “standard”. It doesn’t raise any questions. When questions ARE raised though, saying “they were in love” doesn’t answer them anymore than saying “Bill was horny” answers questions about how and why Monica was giving him Oval-Office blow jobs.
As to where the book should be placed in the library, who knows? If I were a librarian, I guess I’d be worrying over that issue. As for myself, I don’t really care. I wouldn’t be upset if I took the book out of the library to read to my kids, and I wouldn’t be upset if I bought it unaware from amazon dot com and ended up having to explain fudge packing. I can undertand how some people might object to it, though. Teaching your kids about the birds and the bees is (or should be) a personal issue between parents and children. And for those parents who are too ashamed to discuss it (or who think that condoms don’t prevent pregnancy and the spread of STDs), I don’t think any lasting harm will be done if they wait until they’re in elementary school for the Nanny State to take over the parental responsibilities.
All things in their time, m’hijito. While I have nothing against fudge-packing, blow jobs, doggy-style sex, or any other acts between consenting adults, I can see how some folks might think potty training and eating solid foods don’t go hand in hand with frank discussions of sexual preferences. If the parents are really that concerned about instilling tolerance and self-esteem in their children, perhaps they should hook up with some same-sex parents in real life, live in a neighborhood where these folks hang out, or have a conversation with them. There’s more to child rearing than just reading your kids a rainbow fairy tale.
You know what, kids believe in flying reindeer and the tooth fairy. I’m sure that if you tell them some guys like guys and some girls like girls they won’t have much trouble with it.
MM
You are still working under the assumption that the kids will even ask about this and I’m telling you it does not happen. As far as I can tell (at least with teachers), you do not even start getting serious questions of this nature until around the third grade (about 8 or 9 years old)and by then their parents should have explained something of sex to them. Most children do not have a fully formed idea of what the “cultural standard” is or how that applies to relationships. In my experience, young children (PreK-2nd) simply do not care and kids older then 3rd grade already have enough figured out so they won’t bother asking.
Oh and don’t count on the “Nanny State” to tell your young children anything about sex. The standard answer is “go ask your parents.” Not until junior high or high school will teachers broach that subject if they can help it and only in an H.S. or Health class. Too much worry of getting fired, sued or both.
>>As far as I can tell (at least with teachers),
>>you do not even start getting serious questions
>>of this nature until around the third grade
Hey, in all my years of learning about the birds and the bees, it never once occurred to me to ask an elementary-school teacher questions like that. That, plus the fact that the book is being read at home, not in school, makes me not surprised that questions like that may not arise in the classroom.
And as I say, I don’t have a problem with the book myself. My kids didn’t seem to have any problem with the guys in the Chicago Gay Parade; they were more puzzled about why guys would want to dress up in crotchless black leather and beat each other with whips.
My only point is that maybe putting the book in the Kiddie Section of the library without any warning as to what’s in it might not be the most prudent thing to do, and might invite complaints. If somebody came across the book in the now-defunct My Brother’s Touch bookstore on Hennepin Ave in Minneapolis, they would know what to expect from a book titled “King & King”, but not in the local public library.
And the fact that it’s “geared toward 6-year-olds” makes no nevermind. That would seem to be the authors’ problem. What if somebody published a picture book of sexual techniques, and “geared it toward 6-year-old”? That shouldn’t go in the Toddler Section either.
I guess the take-home message is if that the parents are so tight-assed that they can’t tolerate a fairy tale that involves homosexuality in any way, they SHOULD pre-read everything they expose their kids to. I still don’t think it was a very wise decision for the library to put the book in with Hansel & Gretel and Where the Wild Things Are.
btw, I’ll bet with that overbite, the kid’s mother Eileen Issa could give a great blow job:
http://tinyurl.com/36ag6c
Maybe she should write a first-person memoir, rather than complain about taking what she considers naughty books out of the library.
#50 – MM – you’re still wrong, and all this random posturing and bluster isnt converting anyone to your “camp of the normal”
I think the biggest problem some people would have with this book is that it ends with “Kind & King” getting married, rather than being stoned by the villagers and learning a valuable lesson, followed by an excruciatingly painful death.
With a little rewriting, I bet the sales could triple, just in time for Christmas 😉
>>MM – you’re still wrong, and all this random
>>posturing and bluster isnt converting anyone
>>to your “camp of the normal”
Woo woo, Wookie! Now there’s a powerful rebuttal to my statements. Damn, boy! Were you on the debate team in high school??
Here’s one for ya: “I’m rubber, you’re glue; whatever you say bounces off me and sticks to you”.
I don’t normally pull out the big guns like that, but you gotta fight fire with fire.
Leave it out of the children’s section. Why? Look at the level of dialog and debate in this section.
This debate behavior would scare the hell out of any child.
you know, think of the vast money that king and king would have! No sharing it with poverty stricken tramps (Cinderella) who would be certain to take at least half in the divorce proceedings…no dealing with gold diggers just out for their own gain. Prince and price makes economic sense!
I think you are all missing the stupid point..this is a great idea.
MM
Stop !!! Think about what you are about to say before putting your foot in your mouth again.
This book was specifically written for pre-schoolers and kindergarten. It teaches TOLERENCE. I know, a big word for bigots to appreciate. It is in the same mold as most Dr. Seuss books using strange creatures that only vaguely resemble humans. Or picture books with different races.
If you want your children to grow up with intolerant ideas about homosexuality, then you will be to blame for the result. If you want your children putting bumper stickers on their car suggesting we bomb all rag heads back into the cave man days, then yup, you will be to blame. If you want your children discriminating against other races, then guess who should bear the responsibility.
So stop and think of what tolerance your god would like you to show.