Pre-School Withdraws Book Showing ...
- Thread starter mawnansmiff
- Start date
SmokingPipes.com Updates
Watch for Updates Twice a Week
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
Site Sponsors
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
PipesMagazine Approved Sponsor
- Status
We're you reading Kevin the Kitten at age 4? Or did your parents read it to you.Not gonna lie, the fact somebody allowed a bunch of Pre-Schoolers access to the literary equivalent of The Blue Oyster Bar really made me laugh.
I can see why parents might have had a problem with the book.
View attachment 241984
When I was their age I read books about "Kevin The Kitten". They were pretty good for kids books and I loved reading about Kevin and his various adventures. I don't think he wore any assless leather chaps, tho.
Even the name of the book made me laugh. "Grandad's Pride" Sounds like a codger blend
Some parents may find "Grandpa's Pride" appropriate for their 4 year old and some won't.
I also have a 9 year old grandson who loves to read. I don't think "Grandpa's Pride" is appropriate for him. Still too much for his young mind to think about.
Of course... but that is in their home. Not the preschool. I think, and it sounds like you agree, it is an important distinction.
Let's look at the subject of this thread Big Picture-style:
Earth has existed for approximately four billion years, and Life upon it for about twenty percent of that time. 800 million years.
Since day one every species that has existed on Earth is 100% a product of its environment. (By definition it isn't possible for anything to exist outside an organism to not be part of that organism's environment.)
Humans are a species of animal.
Humans became what they are today because of successful responses to their environment.
Specifically, it was "proved in real-world field testing" (so to speak) that sexual dimorphism worked best for H. sapiens: Males to fight, procure food, and be capable of inseminating females without limit. Females to have offspring, care for and nurture offspring, and be capable of survival-related tasks when the males were not available.
That that evolutionary outcome... the resulting dimorphic characteristics... is offensive to 21st century humans is humorous. That many people think they can change that outcome in a retroactive fashion with sufficient stubbornness, denial, and insistence is absurd.
So, what's going on? The subset of humans who hunger for power and control over others discovered that exploiting the (much larger) subset of humans who were offended by "unfairness" is easy, since emotion is how the vast majority of humans make decisions about anything. (As a bonus, since unequal evolutionary outcome---unfairness---is how evolution works, it's a goose that will never stop laying golden eggs for those exploiters.)
The point?
No problem can be solved until the problem itself is recognized, acknowledged, and understood.
And the problem is this: In the past few generations Man's technical accomplishments have "freed" the sexes from their biological roles. However, the essential nature of the sexes has not---cannot---change in such a short time.
One day H. sapiens might "catch up" to the technology via DNA manipulation (i.e. accelerated evolution), but until then, he will pay a dire price in uncountably complex ways.
Earth has existed for approximately four billion years, and Life upon it for about twenty percent of that time. 800 million years.
Since day one every species that has existed on Earth is 100% a product of its environment. (By definition it isn't possible for anything to exist outside an organism to not be part of that organism's environment.)
Humans are a species of animal.
Humans became what they are today because of successful responses to their environment.
Specifically, it was "proved in real-world field testing" (so to speak) that sexual dimorphism worked best for H. sapiens: Males to fight, procure food, and be capable of inseminating females without limit. Females to have offspring, care for and nurture offspring, and be capable of survival-related tasks when the males were not available.
That that evolutionary outcome... the resulting dimorphic characteristics... is offensive to 21st century humans is humorous. That many people think they can change that outcome in a retroactive fashion with sufficient stubbornness, denial, and insistence is absurd.
So, what's going on? The subset of humans who hunger for power and control over others discovered that exploiting the (much larger) subset of humans who were offended by "unfairness" is easy, since emotion is how the vast majority of humans make decisions about anything. (As a bonus, since unequal evolutionary outcome---unfairness---is how evolution works, it's a goose that will never stop laying golden eggs for those exploiters.)
The point?
No problem can be solved until the problem itself is recognized, acknowledged, and understood.
And the problem is this: In the past few generations Man's technical accomplishments have "freed" the sexes from their biological roles. However, the essential nature of the sexes has not---cannot---change in such a short time.
One day H. sapiens might "catch up" to the technology via DNA manipulation (i.e. accelerated evolution), but until then, he will pay a dire price in uncountably complex ways.
Just curious, and this is not supposed to sound snarky, but does anyone who has responded have a child in preschool?
My 4 year old grandson is in preschool as I mentioned in my first post.
A bit of both. I started reading when I was about 4-5 years old.
The first books I learned to read were The Mr Men
.
I have one kid in preschool and another just entering kindergarten and one of the schools we toured earlier this summer had books of this nature prominently displayed in their indoctrination cam… oops sorry I mean classroom.
I love these books! I read them to my kids all the time.A bit of both. I started reading when I was about 4-5 years old.
The first books I learned to read were The Mr Men
View attachment 241996
I wonder if our kindergarten books have been retitled, “Jane” because she now covers both names.
I would not have the time or $ to dedicate to my industrial, artistic, profesional, or hedonistic pursuits if I had kids.
But I do have a vested interest in the next generation as I intend to be an elderly person some day.
Timeless classics. They also make a cartoon series that's worth a look. I can only speak of the ones they produced in the 1970's as they're the ones I watched growing up in the late 70's early 80's.
They're free on YouTube and your kids will probably enjoy them.
What pisses me off most about all this shit in regards to the UK, is that they seem intent on associating themselves so heavily with the left and hence denying Labour victory at the next election. It pisses me off even more when so-called socialists jump on board with it. This is an identarian issue for political liberals, of the right or the left, it has nothing to do with old school socialist values.
Precisely. Or Anarchistic for that matter. It seems like they've hijacked all the good solid movements. Seriously. I have no place to hang my black flag because no one seems to know what it originally meant. Everything has been hijacked.
Nice! I didn’t know they made these cartoons!
- Status