zlacker

I'm neither credible nor reputable, but I'm in favor of a weak version of this. When reading older books to my young child, I replace language that suggests that women are supposed to stay at home and men are supposed to go to work. One day soon he'll be able to read, and at that point I'll wish that books that were a product of their time would have been updated for the current time, so that he could just read the book, without us having to have a conversation about how things were different then.

>>bla3+(OP)
Your decision may be contributing to the crisis of identity of women who do want to raise a family though, and who have been crushed by a culture who pushes college and helping capital owners as the meaning to life.

>>bla3+(OP)
Do you think the best way to address slavery is to erase all the records and pretend it didn’t happen?

>>menset+E
The only way to solve this identity crisis is to push the idea that women must stay at home, of course.

>>bla3+(OP)
> I replace language that suggests that women are supposed to stay at home and men are supposed to go to work

I totally agree - my kids had Berenstain Bear's books (as random gifts and such) and I would avoid reading them because in particular the way they portrayed Papa Bear as a bumbling fool grated on my nerves. He's like a Homer Simpson without the heart. I'm certain mothers also don't appreciate the way Mama Bear is portrayed as always in the kitchen and the ultimate authority figure.

If these books were updated to modern sensibilities I wouldn't have a problem reading them to my kids. As it stands, I skipped them and they weren't a part of my children's upbringing. I don't mind.

>>bla3+(OP)
There are tons of books that actually are a product of the current time. Why not read those, and support living writers, instead of changing the meaning of older works?

Seems like your problem here is easier to solve without messing with the other writers and potentially confusing your child about what, say, a Ronald Dahl book is actually like.

>>zmgsab+i2
Children's books are not a vital record of historical prejudice.

I don't agree with these changes, but this argument makes no sense.

>>menset+E
My understanding is that this crisis of identity is actually on men, because men aren’t now the sole breadwinners and also don’t have girlboss feminism to bolster them. Men attain less education and are more prone to crime, homelessness, and addiction. The traditional role of a man is an emotionally closed-off breadwinner, and this doesn’t work in a world where women can rival men in breadwinning but also don’t have as many barriers to forming a robust social safety net.

>>bla3+(OP)
Right I really don't get why people are so offended by these changes

If a work of fiction is changed to not imply women are meant to stay at home and men are meant to go to work, doesn't that show that, to those offended, on some level those implications are core to what makes that work that work?

None of these changes drastically affect the storylines, character arcs, unique characteristics, etc of the stories. If the a book saying the N word despite it not being central to the story is so important to you then it doesn't seem like you care about the book so much as you care about saying the N word

>>zmgsab+i2
Academics and historians studying this will look at the original language of course. The publisher goes to great lengths to make available all the changes made and is very transparent about them. Obviously most people aren't reading children's books to their kids to teach them history though

>>culi+Z7
> If a work of fiction is changed to not imply women are meant to stay at home and men are meant to go to work, doesn't that show that, to those offended, on some level those implications are core to what makes that work that work?

The problem is that Dahl’s work isn’t an essay, or a treatise. It’s whimsical. It’s art! The words chosen, were chosen because they were the words that worked.

Say these two extracts out loud:

> “You mean Prince Pondicherry?” said Grandpa Joe, and he began chuckling with laughter. “Completely dotty, said Grandpa George. “But very rich,” said Grandma Georgina

> “You mean Prince Puducherry?” said Grandpa Joe, and he began chuckling with laughter

They mean essentially the same thing, but they feel quite different. The rhythm of “Prince Pondicherry” has a bounce to it, “Prince Puducherry” is more like walking down hill.

You might make the argument that this trade of is worth making, but it is in fact a trade of.

>>Samoye+p7
Both groups can have a crisis of identity? Conservative women aren't looked upon very positively in popular culture, this isn't much of a reach.

>>tsol+zd
Yep. There's no shortage of crisis these days! Both of these groups are definitely suffering.

>>bla3+(OP)
I don’t. That’s a perfectly reasonable perspective.

>>culi+Z7
> "I really don't get why people are so offended by these changes..."

The problem is, changes are made simply because a fictional female character happens to stay at home. Which is fine if she wants that, or it happens in the story.

I don't get why parents are so untrusting of their children's ability to think, that they censor and change language found in old books. Are they worried their kids will become monsters if they're not spoon-fed censored content?

Many of us grew up surrounded by unchecked stereotypes, yet many of us have zero problems with women doing whatever they want to do.

>>Samoye+p7
> Men attain less education and are more prone to crime, homelessness, and addiction.

What an awful thing to say. It would be different if your comment taught us something, but it's little more than a well-written diss.

Imagine how you'd feel if the word "Men" were replaced by various ethnic groups, while still maintaining its accuracy.

At one time it was true to say that women were naturally bad at chess.

My wife supported me financially for close to five years. It's why I was able to learn ML so thoroughly. Maybe some men would view her as the competition, but I'm fortunate to be in a relationship where we don't feel threatened by the other. I recommend other men try to find this as well, since it's quite nice.

It's also nice to have a family where the roles are well-defined and reliable, and there's nothing wrong with wanting one over the other. It's personal preference, which you can't really control. But saying that men are bad at forming robust social safety nets is different than qualifying your statements with "some" or "most."

I'll be the first to say that it's a huge double standard to expect most men to be emotionally closed off most of the time, whereas women are expected to be more emotional in relation to men. But you're phrasing this in a highly negative way.

The women who don't become homeless often resort to sex work. It tends to be more difficult for men to do this in a financially successful way. Men are statistically more prone to violent crime; granted, and testosterone deserves to be scrutinized in its role regarding this. As for the addiction claim, I'd be curious to see the data, since my anecdata suggests mostly equal rates. https://nida.nih.gov/publications/research-reports/substance... claims the situation is a bit more nuanced:

> For most age groups, men have higher rates of use or dependence on illicit drugs and alcohol than do women. However, women are just as likely as men to develop a substance use disorder. In addition, women may be more susceptible to craving and relapse, which are key phases of the addiction cycle.

More generally, if you're going to paint various segments of the population with negative traits, it's important to bring data to the discussion which backs up your assertions. That way it informs the reader rather than polarizing them.

That said, if you'd written a children's book, I wouldn't lobby for it to be changed. I'd buy different books, or explain it in context.

>>smt88+z6
Ask a few random people on the street in a major US city how many books they've read in the past five years.

I'd wager that children's books represent a much larger percentage of the books the typical US citizen reads in their entire lifetime than anyone would like to believe.

If true, this would elevate their importance enough for matters like historical accuracy to be worth considering.

>>bentco+y3
I've taken the "Oh no! Sorry. That book was accidentally destroyed maliciously," approach before.

(Interestingly, my own parents took that approach with the Berenstain Bears for exactly the reason you describe.)

But I'd prefer to either read something to my kids as originally written or not read it all. Or as they get older, read the original but with a parental aside on how it was a product of its time. (Might as well make it an opportunity for a brief history lesson.)

I'm definitely not a fan of this "force push" approach to updating established older works.

>>bitcur+3a
Maybe we should change the Mona Lisa to have blue hair

>>exodus+Wg
> Are they worried their kids will become monsters if they're not spoon-fed censored content?

They are worried they will imitate or become a character in a fictional fantasy

>>acuozz+qi
I would imagine past highscool, or the last education level with mandatory book reading, book reading falls off a cliff. And ever for mandatory book reading,I guess about half of students just read some kind of notes instead of the actual book.

>>biztos+o5
Because they might not know the modern books or because they might like the older books, except for 0.001% of their content.

>>tsol+zd
Wanting to stay home and raise a family (as a man, a woman, or anything else) is not "conservative", it's a lifestyle choice.

Maybe it's because I'm European but hearing the word "conservative" applied to a basic lifestyle choice so readily is really grating. There's more to life than conservative vs liberal and sometimes you just... don't need to give political labels to everything.

There's more to life than identity politics. Let people make non-political lifestyle choices without labelling them.

>>oblio+Am
I'd put it at middle school. In highschool plenty of students rely on Cliff Notes or whatever the current equivalent is.

>>Samoye+p7
Men may be have a crisis of identity but women still expect their husbands to be the main breadwinners and suffer from the mismatch of expectation and reality too. Women avoid marrying men who earn less and have no potential to earn more.

As a result I'd expect a lot of single men with below average income and a lot of single women with above average income who struggle to find worthy men. Statistically it is impossible meet two condition at once: 1. women on average earn at leas as much as men 2. In a family a husband has income higher than a wife.

>>bitcur+3a
OK, but how does an Indian child feel reading that, who has their name mispronounced every day (sometimes carelessly, sometimes with profuse apologies, sometimes deliberately), and knowing that Pondicherry could never be the name of an Indian prince?

>>Samoye+p7
it really is for both, and it's not two independent crises; they're two mutually interdependent crises that reinforce each other

>>bentco+y3
Why not explain the historical context of these books instead? (That’s I what do with my children.) My children appreciate the transparency and extra discussion. That leads to a better longer term outcome for society than with the ease and convenience that censorship provides. History’s mistakes tend to repeat when society forgets them. We can’t rely on educational institutions doing our job for us since the same trend of censorship is happening in their realm.

>>lozeng+hw
How do children of any specific minority feel when they read historical accounts of racial injustice against their people? Probably really terrible, and maybe even scared. Should they not learn about that history because it makes them feel horrible? That would be extremely unwise since the mistakes of history tend happen again once society forgets.

Old works of fiction also belong in historical narrative because it helps give us a window into popular culture at the time.

(Not that this should matter since my argument should stand on its own, but I’m not white. I just want to preempt any accusations.)

>>TedDoe+Rl
Maybe these parents should do the hard work of teaching their kids about historical context surrounding this instead of simply censoring it?

>>espere+Jm
"traditional" may have been the word closer to what he was looking for.

>>lozeng+hw
They deal with it knowing that the world is a complex place.

My name was romanized in a incorrect way a hundred years ago and technically the entire English speaking world mispronounces it. I deal with it by not being a goddamn baby about it. And yes, I figured this out when I was 10.

>>chaost+sE
Fair enough, and I applaud your approach, but IMO there's a time and place, and bedtime wasn't one of those times or places I wanted to get into these kinds of discussions.

>>chaost+sE
Because there are enough (a veritable deluge of) alternatives that do not require extra work on my part.

Which is probably why the Dahl copyright holders are doing this(1). Not to appease some sort of modern sensibilities, but to make money. Apparently they think the investment will pay off.

(1) a less money-focused reason could be because they truly believe these stories deserve to be shared in the future, and see the things they changed as barriers to that goal while of little import to the message. But again, they think this step will "pay off" - in continued popularity / enduring part of culture then.

>>Beldin+Ch1
Maybe read other books instead of helping destroy classics?

Yeah, I agree that the copyright holders are acting rationally, but long term this will destroy our democracies. A key premise of Fahrenheit 451 is that they end up with sanctioned book burnings because of something boring like political correctness.

>>oblio+Cm
At least in the Dahl case, they're explicitly trying to change the tone of the works, and not just the "content" -- whatever that word is supposed to mean in the context of literature.

Everybody's family is different, but my childhood self would have been pretty disillusioned to discover my parents censoring books on my behalf. I really can't see how that's a good lesson for the kids, especially when you can just buy contemporary works that are as PC/woke (or not) as you want them to be.

>>chaost+LF
The point of the book is to entertain, not to make someone feel scared and like an outsider. Dahl also made changes for this reason.

>>lozeng+Ez1
That’s not the only point of fictional works including Dahl’s. Often there are allegorical messages, themes, and satire.

It’s not constructive to stick children’s heads into the ground, especially when that self-chosen ignorance will lead to much worse societal outcomes long term.

>>bentco+2g1
Maybe read other books instead of helping destroy classics and advancing societal censorship?

>>Izkata+Nu
To be fair a lot of students don't bother to read books school assigns as textsx because the way schools run things actually reading, engaging, and thinking about it is a disadvantage. There are certain themes and points your teachers want you to mention in your answers and any analysis outside of that will be considered "incorrect" or given lower marks, even if they relate to the text and the theme being studied.

>>oblio+Cm
Then you, like, realize it's an older book and deal with the fact that it may not 100% line up with your modern expectations.

Especially if it's just 0.001% of the content.

>>bla3+(OP)
Wouldn't a preface achieve a similar outcome without changing the original work? The conversation about things having changed is valuable as it demonstrates how society is progressing.