Bitchery Reader Rbelle sent me the following link: seems the presence of the word “scrotum” in this year’s Newberry winner, The Higher Power of Lucky, has caused librarians to reach for the hartshorn and ban the book from their libraries.
Yes. Scrotum. We’re only a few days past slamming our heads on the desks over “The Hoohah Monologues,” and now word comes that once again we must connect our craniums to the desk surface with considerable force. “Scrotum” is cause for book banning.
Seems the main character overhears the word through a hole in the fence when another character details where a rattlesnake bit his dog.
This is my particular favorite quote, and by “favorite” I mean it makes me want to explode with rage in every possible direction:
Dana Nilsson, a teacher and librarian in Durango Colorado, had this to say about The Higher Power of Lucky”: “This book included what I call a Howard Stern-type shock treatment just to see how far they could push the envelope, but they didn’t have the children in mind.”
Yes. Howard Stern frequently would make use of the word “scrotum.” The hell he would. He, Opie, Anthony, or any other shock jock would use “balls,” “junk,” or “nutsack,” but “scrotum?”
I hate to break it to Ms. Nilsson, but that’s the anatomically correct word to describe that part of the human anatomy. It’s not like the book contains the words “spunk factory” or “bag of fuck pucks.”
I have to put my head between my knees now, lest I pass out from hyperventilating rage at the yet-again-so-dismaying fear we have of anything remotely sexual. We can’t even use the proper words for reproductive organs. Perhaps I can’t even say “head” and “knees.” I have to put my desk-slamming-tension-relieving-rotund-appendage betwixt my flexible joints which enable me to walk.
My mother, the former elementary school librarian, would be mortified by this.
:head-desk along with SB Sarah:
It makes me wonder if Ms. Nilsson has also banned the “s” encyclopia and all anatomy books from her classroom, as well.
People are so weird.
And we’re talking dog balls, not even guy balls…
Personally, I think the whole nonsense is silly, but if you want my take on it as an educator with a story to be read ALOUD in class, go to deirdresavoysays.blogspot.com.
Incidentally, my verifier word is ball44
This stuff just makes me SO MAD.
Although your post—“bag of fuck pucks?”—totally cracked me up.
My seven year-old says penis, why shouldn’t he read a book with the word ‘scrotum’ in it?
AGGHHHHH!!!!!
Deep Breaths.
Deep Breaths.
The School Board Member in Residence is busy having flashbacks to the debaucle of accepting a gift of eighty copies of Ragtime for a High School Lit class. The Horror! We had book lists and irate parents and librarians and fights and Oh. My. God. The Children! The poor innocent children who will need to read a scene of [gasp] rape! And they call this literature?
It went on for waaaay too long. But we got the book in finally. (Mostly by asking the protestors if they had read all the other books which previous Lit classes had read, and did the fact that there was discussion of racism in Ragtime perhpas upset their tender souls more than the rape? Because your kids have already read about rape and incest and body parts in this book, and this book, and this book…)
Two weeks after that one died down we had a protest because another High School teacher was using class time to show his students R Rated MOVIES! The Horror!
The movie? Zeffirelli’s Romeo and Juliet. (Which isn’t R rated by the way.)
This scrotum story gave me flashbacks to all of that. Yuck. One day a few intelligent people will storm Board Meetings and library councils and demand something enlightening and educational. At least that is the wish I make just before every single meeting I attend. SO far it hasn’t happened yet.
Lots of people are more shocked by anatomically correct language than by shall we call them loosely “nick names.” And that’s pretty peculiar.
Frankly, I think we should be more concerned if there are any 9-12 year olds out there who don’t know what a scrotum is already!
When did it become okay to shame kids when they ask for a definition? How else are they going to learn? And what gives these folks the right to “protect” these kids from anatomically correct words?
Rbelle beat me to you! I sent you the link minutes after I blogged. I am just flummoxed over this whole stupid thing.
PS:
I nearly spit my wine onto my brand new computer when I read this: bag of fuck pucks
BEST. PHRASE. EVER.
Frankly, I think we should be more concerned if there are any 9-12 year olds out there who don’t know what a scrotum is already!
This is so funny because a few weeks ago my 15 year old daughter and I had this unrelated conversation while I was getting dinner ready.
Her: Mom what is a scrotum?
Me: Balls
Her: Oh, I thought it was a nutsack or something like that.
Me: Why do you ask?
Her: I just it heard it somewhere and wanted to know if I had it right.
Me: Ok honey.
My daughter has not lead a sheltered life, but apparently she is more familiar with nicknames.
Stuff like this makes me see red (altho I’m in total agreement that bag of fuck pucks almost made me fall off my chair with laughter).
I wonder if these “protectors of the children” actually THINK before they shoot off their mouths – or am I being too generous in assuming they’ve got brains to begin with? (oh no, the dreaded B-Word! Quick – what else can we call that??) And who the hell appointed these morons in the first place? They don’t care about the children, only their own hangups. Who was ever hurt by hearing the word scrotum or what it is?
Actually, scrotum ranks right up there with panties as words I can’t stand, but I would use it if one of my kids had questions. Personally, I prefer the phrase fuzzy -or furry, depending on the guy, I guess – beanbag. I credit my husband for that little gem of mental imagery.
I personally don’t have a problem with public school elementary librarians being especially careful of the content on their shelves. Probably get tired of the snickering and doodling from the back row. Although my kid’s librarian would probably just taken a black marker to a questionable word. By middle and high school, anatomically correct words should be acceptable.
Don’t get me started on the local public library, they wouldn’t censor anything including the internet. The ranchier it is, the better they like it…especially if they can use the label “literature.” Clearly set up to be kid friendly with no supervision and absolutely no filters.
Stories like this always make me wonder what exactly is wrong with Americans. Kids have to witness some pretty severe violence, sexist stereotyping, or negative body images before anyone complains. But when an author has the gall to put the word scrotum where the kiddies might see it, you can practically hear the parents and librarians sharpening the pitchforks and lighting the torches. Priorities skewed much?
“Don’t get me started on the local public library, they wouldn’t censor anything including the internet. The ranchier it is, the better they like it…especially if they can use the label “literature.†Clearly set up to be kid friendly with no supervision and absolutely no filters.”
Excuse me, but why aren’t you supervising your own children? Does your public library offer babysitting service? Do they charge for that? Haven’t you taught your children better than to look at porn when they’re out in public? Oh, sorry, I forgot – it’s the school’s responsibility, or the library’s responsibility, or the government’s responsibility to teach your children right from wrong. Silly me, I always assumed it was my job as a parent to handle such things. Damn, all that extra work I’ve put into that kid over the past 10 years…
Oh my, and I just put in 2 copies of this book at our library. I heard of this yesterday when my boss came back into my office informing me of it and laughing the whole time. I can’t believe the way some other librarians think. God knows there are worst terms that could have been used. As far as porn on the internet in public libraries I wanted to say something about that. No, we cannot have filters placed on the computers, but we do not allow patrons to get into porn sites or they are banned from the computer a good long time (and we are not there to be babysitters -that notion drives me insane!). I don’t know if people are aware of this, but our computers are set up so we can access the public computers and we what people are into if we have reason to be suspicious. I think we must bust somebody for looking at porn about once a week.
Stories like this always make me wonder what exactly is wrong with Americans. Kids have to witness some pretty severe violence, sexist stereotyping, or negative body images before anyone complains.
In a nutshell, that is my #1 pet peeve about American culture. We’re so terrified that someone’s having good sex, but yet between the hours of 7 and 9, my 15 month old (aka Smart Bitch Freebird) could see any number of people getting shot, killed, beaten, or dissected in autopsy. Between show segments, there’s emaciated women drinking beer and man-titty men getting sexually tackled in elevators because they wear body spray.
But oh holy crap, is that a breast? Call the network!
It’s the most frustrating thing that I try to manage as a parent: how do I have an open dialogue about sexuality, sex, and the physical body with my son when to do so can be seen by those wielding the pitchforks as prurient, while he’s subtly indoctrinated by everyone else to believe that sex is shameful, hidden, and definitely not to be talked about with your mom.
Well, this just reinforces the fact that I’m a horrible mother. Not only do my sons know the correct words for things, but when my youngest asked, “What do girls have if they don’t have a penis?” I actually found a picture online to show him. (Not porn, though. A medical picture.) He doesn’t seem to be traumatized, although he did say it looked really weird and couldn’t imagine why anyone would want “a girl-private.” Snicker.
Not to mention that we were watching a movie a few weeks ago with an Egyptian goddess character whose computer-generated form was topless. It totally skipped my radar until the youngest said, “She forgot her shirt.” Whoops. I guess I’m just used to seeing topless Egyptian women in art and hieroglyphs. Gee, my 8 year old has now seen breasts and vagina. I should be carted off to the slammer Right. Now.
Nevermind that he doesn’t seem particularly interested in, or traumatized by, either. Nope. Next thing you know, he’ll learn the word SCROTUM and I’ll get the electric chair.
Oh, this whole conversation had me laughing! Particularly the more colorful words used in place of “scrotum.” I feel slightly uneducated (I was not allowed to use anything other than the actual, proper name for any body part—my mother felt that was the path to letting said body part have control over you instead of the other way around.)
Now I have some new words for use in conversation!
You’d think that the people who are supposed to be educating children would know how smart they actually are. Kids know when something is being hidden from them and it makes them curious.
I recall, at a gathering of about 20 people including their kids, when my 5 year old nephew and a friend of his asked a girl to show them her private parts. Well shit, half the parents were in an embaressed uproar, you might have thought they wanted him incarcerated or something. My mother, the greatest grandmother/mom/woman who ever lived, asked her stepson why his son had no idea what a vagina looked like. She went to the house and started flipping through books to find a picture. She said if he had known what a vagina actually was and looked like he wouldn’t have been half as curious. He also should have known who to ask if he was curious about such things.
So my mother, my aunt, my sister and me are all going to the chair with you Amy.
Kids aren’t stupid. The reason they snicker and laugh over words like scrotum is because everyone else in authority tries to hide or discourage the use of such words. It’s no longer educational, it laughable.
I was just talking about this with my husband two nights ago – the idea that actual words for things are bad – drives me freaking nuts.
Scrotum is just a word. An accurate word for a body part. It wasn’t used in a way to titilate, it wasn’t used in a sexual fashion. People need to take those sticks out of their asses and stop being stupid.
On a related note, someone recently complained about the presence of the word clit in a sensual romance – hello – it’s a clitoris – that’s what it’s called. Get the hell over it, if you’re so uptight the mere mention of something you’ve got down there in your girly bits freaks you out, perhaps you should be reading something else – like a self help book.
“And we’re talking dog balls, not even guy balls…”
Yeah and was’nt the scrotum in question getting bitten by …something?
“Howard Stern-type shock treatment just to see how far they could push the envelope,”
C’mon she telling us she’s listened to Howard Stern? She just gave that example just because he was the dirtyiest thing she could think of…twit!
The more I think about this the more I laugh.
Shouldn’t the politically correct outrage be over the fact that the dog hadn’t been neutered in the first place?
Bob Barker better not find out about this book. He’ll have a hey day with it on The Price is Right.
I have several reactions to this, each more ridiculous than the last:
1. Intense curiosity over the context in the book. I understand the circumstances are that a dog is bitten on the scrotum by a snake… WTF? That’s got to be one hilarious scene, and I wonder how the author came up with it.
2. Brainflashes on the South Park episode where Cartman is whacking off a dog.
3. A mad desire to walk around saying “scrotum scrotum scrotum” like a one-word Tourettes sufferer. It’s such a funny word, isn’t it?
4. Mystification that people are so distanced from farm life that they are offended by technical terms. If a city kid like me knows a thing or three about how animal husbandry works, then folks in the sticks (“sticks”=“anywhere outside the 212”) have no bloody excuse. They need to watch some TV other than American Idol. Last night on Dirty Jobs, Mike Rowe was assisting in semen collection from a boar. Educational and funny as hell.
This disturbs me on so many levels.
The first article I read about this, on AOL, had something that made me stop cold:
Ms. Patron, who is a public librarian in Los Angeles, said the book was written for children 9 to 12 years old. But some librarians countered that since the heroine of “The Higher Power of Lucky†is 10, children older than that would not be interested in reading it. “I think it’s a good case of an author not realizing her audience,†said Frederick Muller, a librarian at Halsted Middle School in Newton, N.J.
I’m sorry, but people really honestly think that the age of the protagonist determines the age of the people who read the book? Sounds like these librarians must be amongst those who have also banned the evil Harry Potter or they’d realize that plenty of teens and adults read “children’s” books.
This banning of books business is REALLLLLLY beginning to get on my last nerve. If a particular parent is so concerned about the content of a particular book, then by all means, take all necessary steps to prevent YOUR child from reading it (good luck with that BTW) but stop attempting to prevent the REST of the public get their hands on these books.
And really, this is all about the word “scrotum?” These people are deluded beyong words if they think there is a 10 year old out there who isn’t aware that boys and girls have different parts, plus all the slang words for them.
What makes me saddest about this whole thing is that it’s LIBRARIANS who are calling for censorship…they’re the ones who’re supposed to champion free speech. So, what’s wrong with that picture? I know there’s a terrible urge for school librarians to self-censor the books they buy for their collections, but censoring for correct scientific terms? C’MON!
I agree with SB Sarah—way to go America, for making the word “scrotum” shameful.
This discussion/stupid censorship crap is so timely—I recently read Robin Schone’s “Scandalous Lovers” and boy, did that get a discussion going about how my friends and I learned about “sexuality”.
Girls gone wild in rap videos: Ok. Scrotum: Not ok. Glad I’ve got my parameters straight.
Geez.
Wow. As the mother of a 7 year old son, I can’t imagine the word scrotum being anything for me to worry about. After all, the kid himself knows what he’s got (and so does his 10 year old sister, because, hello, the boy runs around naked whenever he can!)
My kids know the “right” names for their parts. All of them. They prefer to use things like “balls” and “hoo hoo”, probably because they’re funnier.
Doesn’t mean they don’t know what they’re called, or that reading it in a book is going to make them delinquents.
Ha! it is a frickin dog scrotum! for God’s Sakes, people need to realize it is a body. There is nothing wrong with a human, let alone a dog’s stuff. Weird
This reminds me of how my brother got upset that I read Sendak’s “Mickey in the Night Kitchen” to his toddler, because it has one drawing where the little boy is naked. And this from a guy who lets his kids watch any sort of film with violence, sex, nudity, rape, whatever. In fact, the reason I was reading to him is that he was getting upset by his family watching a movie in which a mother is brutally murdered in front of her kids.
I feel the urge to defend librarians. We’re not all twats. It’s funny, but when I first heard about this controversy the first image that popped into my head was of a bunch of kids running to the unabridged dictionary to look up the word “scrotum.”
Now might be a good time to discuss what librarians AREN’T. We aren’t your child’s parent. We aren’t babysitters. We aren’t the moral compass for the community. Our job is to provide a service. Whether that service is to provide Chilton manuals so you can fix your 25 year old Honda, give you a book to study for the GED, or show you where all the James Patterson books are – that’s what we do.
If you’re so worried about what your innocent child is reading, then here’s a thought – GO TO THE LIBRARY TOGETHER! Or better yet – read books together and DISCUSS them together.
But there I go being wacky again. Also, if you’re so concerned about what a child might read – ignore it. Kids tend to flock to anything that is remotely seen as “forbidden.” I read a lot of books as a teen just because there was some asshole out there that thought it might warp my fragile little mind, and so far I have avoided becoming a pervert, criminal, child molestor or drug fiend.
Unless we count chocolate or caffeine. Then yes, I am a drug fiend.
Not to be mean, Wendy, some librarians, maybe many, are twats. I read the stuff my kids read, mostly because I love to read. I found a Sci Fi YA book that featured the lengthy and horrific murders of the heroine’s entire extended family—and this before page 20. I expostulated with the YA librarian at our local branch that this was pretty heavy stuff for the 12 year old crowd. She told me (politely, of course—as only a librarian can) to do unnatural activities as a solo performance. More difficult when female, of course. Then I found publishing guidelines that said that while killing off everybody the heroine loved in the first chapter would be unacceptable for adult audiences, it’s fine for the YA crowd. Now that’s just wrong. But libraries seem more interesting now than than when I was young. The only porn we saw were the flashers who stalked us in the shelves of the old main branch of the Denver Public. By the way, Durango is a resort town, not a cow town, in Colorado. The only sex they see much of is snow bunnies.
This sort of thing is pretty sad. My mother was a nurse and I don’t remember ever NOT knowing all this stuff. I asked, she answered, we will both go to hell.
I think I have learned more from Dirty Jobs than I have in graduate school. Oh, and Mike Rowe is sooooo hot.
Arrrrrrgggghhhhhhh!!!!!
I’m really not surprised, we live in a country where people gripe about women breast feeding their babies in public—even when they can’t see the breast, hide parenting magazines behind the counter because it depicts a woman breast feeding a baby—and omigod the children might see that. I even once worked with a woman who honesttogod told me “ewwwww, breastfeeding babies is just so gross and unnatural”.
so, between that, the hoo haa monologues, and the scrotum incident—I’m ready to pull my hair out until I’m as bald as Britney.
In my “other life,” under a different name to prevent any Judy-Blume-Wifey errors (where fourth graders go carrying home REALLY inappropriate material), I write children’s books. More specifically, Young Adult novels.
I belong to a number of lists jammed with kidlit librarians, the majority of whom are incensed by a) the attempts to censor, since it is literally in their code of ethics to battle censorship in any form, and b) the NYT article.
So incensed are they that many are calling for an investigation and rebuttle, since many of the quotes in the article are innaccurate, and taken out of context. The one librarian who was quoted most frequently has, in my opinion, seemed very upset by how her words were handled, since bits and pieces of what she said were pulled out of context. In my understanding, she has actually refused further media interviews, even CNN, for fear of being misquoted or sensationalized again, and has asked a fellow librarian who is more media-savy to take up the banner.
Many librarians and children’s authors (as you know, we got accused of “slipping words in” for sensational reasons, like I sit around thinking, now, hmmmm, WHERE can I get *fuckpuck* into this story…) are writing the NYT about our irritation, and asking for a less slanted, less sensationalized look at the situation.
Of course, that doesn’t sell newspapers, so we doubt we’ll get it. But, here’s hoping it’s worth the try. Any Bitch interested, of course, can also write in, to the address noted in the letter below, by email, and voice an opinion.
Below is an eloquent letter sent and supported by many children’s librarians, and I’d like to hope most kidlit writers and editors as well, setting the record a bit more straight. It’s the one many of us are referencing when we do write in to the email address provided:
****************
Dear Public Editor:
The following appeared on an electronic children’s literature
discussion group to which I belong.
>>Just as a practical note, one way to respond to the slanted and
>>sensational tone
>>of the New York Times story would be to write to the public editor:
>>public @ nytimes.com
>>It’s his job to read and investigate just such reader complaints.
>>If he gets enough mail about this story, he might even do a column on it.
>>Liz M
Assuming this is true, I am asking you to investigate what I consider
the ‘slanted and sensational tone’ of the New York Times article,
“With Single Word, a Children’s Book Stirs a Battle” by reporter
Julie Bosman.
I am currently a named professor at the Florida State University
College of Information where I teach graduate students who are
studying to be librarians. The majority of my students are studying
to become school librarians, where they are taught it is their
professional responsibility to fight censorship and that they are not
alone in doing so—there is a huge community of librarians standing
behind them and beside them, past and present and I hope future.
Before joining the faculty at FSU, I was district director for the
school libraries in Madison, Wisconsin for 16 years, where there
were complaints about books but never a successful attempt to remove
a book from the shelves, and before that an elementary school
librarian in Madison and a public children’s librarian in Atlanta and
Los Angeles. I am co-author of a book (with John S. Simmons) called
“School Censorship in the 21st Century: A Guide for Teachers and
Librarians and author of a recently published article in the Library
Quarterly (April 2006) called “Intellectual Freedom and Libraries:
Complexity and Change in the Twenty-First-Century Digital
Environment. . I became a librarian because I wanted to join the
support of my profession of intellectual freedom (first amendment
rights)
So here are my thoughts on ‘slanted and sensational.’
SLANTED:
Ms. Bosman quotes only school librarians who state they would censor
this book, a total of four from different parts of the country with
one quoted that “she has heard from dozens of librarians who agreed
with her stance.” (Heresay at the best!) Among the 16,000 school
librarians on LM_Net, there are definitely those who defend
intellectual freedom and eschew censorship, but the ‘slant’ was to
quote only those who seem to be for it.
Moreover, I happen to know Ms. Scales whom she quotes. Ms. Scales
was, indeed, a former Newbery Chair, but Ms. Bosman does not mention
the many, many years in which Ms Scales was a middle school librarian
nor the nationally-recognized and extremely successful program that
she had with middle school parents and children to discuss
controversial books (not ban them) and to promote understanding of
first amendment rights of youth. She does not mention the censorship
battles that she successfully fought as a school librarian. Slanted
indeed!
Ms. Bosman mentioned that ‘some school officials have tried to ban
Harry Potter books from schools, saying that they implicitly endorse
witchcraft and Satanism.
But she fails to mention the ‘only’ court case involving the Harry
Potter books “Counts v. Cedarville School District (2003)”— where
the School Board tried to require students to get written permission
to read Harry Potter books. Judge Hendren ruled that the school
district must return the books to its library shelves and place no
unusual restriction on their circulation. A fourth-grade girl and
her parents brought the suit against the school board’s attempt to
restrict circulation of Harry Potter books. Nor does she mention
the courageous youth in Zeeland, Michigan who successfully fought the
banning of Harry Potter books. Nor does she mention the failure,
worldwide, of attempts to censor these books. ‘Slanted’ indeed.
Nor does Ms. Bosman mention that the incident of book censorship has
steadily declined (by almost 30 %) over the past decade according to
statistics collected by the American Library Association.
SENSATIONAL:
Ms. Bosman states that there have been comments on many blogs and
electronic mailing lists where “school librarians took sides.” That
paragraph is not sensational.
But the paragraph preceding it “The inclusion of the word has
shocked some school librarians, who have pledged to ban the book from
elementary school students,” and the paragraph following it, “This
book included what I call a Howard Stern type shock treatment. . . ”
definitely are sensational. This is not a balanced or objective
reporting of the sides that librarians are taking (mentioned in the
objective paragraph)—it is a reporting of the controversy in a
purposefully sensational manner.
Never once is it suggested what all ‘library school’ students are
taught, i.e., that books are considered for their whole, not for one
part. Nowhere is it mentioned what these quoted librarians (or any
others) think about the book as a whole, what its merits are or are
not. Did the Newbery Committee recognized it a the most
distinguished literature for children published last year because
they wanted to shock? The author defends the book (who is by the way
a librarian) but that is not comparable to the librarians attacking
it. All we know from reading the article is the ‘sensational’ part of
it for librarians.
And the quote from librarian Nilsson at the end “You won’t find men’s
genitalia in quality literature.” “At least not for children,” she
added. Ms Bosman picks this ‘sensational’ quote without note that in
fact it is a dog’s genitalia of which there is a mention, not a man’s.
All in all this article is completely unworthy of a trusted national
newspaper; it is derogatory and undermining to the many courageous
school and other librarians who fight the battles against censorship
every day. Children deserve to read the book chosen best of the year
and I can guarantee none—not even one—will be corrupted by
doing so. As J.K. Rowling has said, “Show me one child who has
learned to be a witch or wizard from my books.” I hope your
investigation will lead to a more balanced follow-up (on the front
page) as well as an admonition for Ms. Bosman to conduct balanced
inquiry and reporting in the future (rather than being ‘sucked into’
the slanted and the sensational.’ )
Thanks
Eliza T. D.
Anyway, I hope I might have offered a bit different perspective on the librarians in general, at least those involved with kidlit. These ladies and gentlemen, by and large, are some of the loudest, most outspoken activists for freedom of speech, anti-censorship, and freedom of choice that I know. They have been in pain over this article, and speaking openly about the decision to fight parents and school boards over this book (now that it’s been so sensationalized) vs. losing their livelihoods—which some of them very well might. Fight, and lose their jobs, I mean. School librarians AND community librarians.
And, I strongly encourage everyone and anyone—READ the book. It’s beautiful and wonderful, and I doubt any thinking Bitch will find it inappropriate for the middle grade and young adult set, once you see how that word is *really* used.
So, as for this Bitch, I kinda want to Bitch-Slap the NYT over the whole deal.
Sorry this is such a novel in itself!
Hmm, I already had this one on my Amazon wishlist… now I’m ready to move it to the top!
Also? When I was 9-12, I found this book on banned books, and read every banned book I could get my hands on.
Funny to see the Harry Potter books mentioned again…
In HP #5 (I think), the British edition has the phrase “we kept our peckers up”—a perfectly innocuous phrase outside the US. Oh, that made me laugh.
However, even the American version has reference to Draco as a “scumbag.” And I saw some otherwise clean-cut TV show last week where again, one kid called another a scumbag. And I can’t help but wonder if the censors simply don’t know what this word means?
So, the librarian was being twatty For letting you as a parent decide what material is appropriate for your child and not making the decision for you? For letting other parents decide what is appropriate for their children? For not letting the opinion of one person determine the appropriateness of an item? For NOT censoring?
I just want to be clear, here.
Okay, color me stupid. What does scumbag mean, then? I’ve always heard it as something not much worse than “jerk” or “unsavory character.” Now you’ve got me curious.
Since I’m notoriously impatient, I just did some googling rather than wait for an answer. (Probably should’ve done that before asking the question, no?) The first 4 online-dictionary listings (Merriam-Webster, Answers.com, American Heritage Dictionary, The Free Dictionary, and WordWebOnline) I found only listed the definition as “a despicable person” or variants thereof. The fourth (Allwords.com) listed “an undesirable or unsavory person” as the first definition, and “condom” as the second with the annotation, “Chiefly outside the US.”
So there. I’ve been educated and passed it along for the rest of my fellow ignorant Americans.
And by the way, my sons STILL giggle madly when Ron offers Hermione some spotted dick in the 5th book, when she’s gone on hunger strike. And yes, I giggle, too. Don’t do it, Hermione! Every Smart Bitch knows to avoid spotted dick unless you have a scumbag!
… and apparently I can’t count, either. That’s 5 dictionaries without the condom definition, not 4. Sigh. Proving the ignorant American point right there, eh?
My son (age 11) is not allowed to tell teachers/other students when he gets kicked in the TESTICLES. He calls them tables now…
Do not ask me why.
My kids know the correct terms, both male parts and female parts. I wasn’t actually upset that he couldn’t use the term in school. I’ve always told them that I want them to know the facts and answers to their questions, but that not everyone is like I am and that other parents have the right to inform their kids as they see fit. I tell them not to talk at school.
Sam