What I like about Newman's article was that when she defended the statement she made about representing all families in children's literature is she did so using her religion, not her sexuality. That way it can give readers another perspective. She expressed that she was a young Jewish girl who grew up in a very Jewish community, surrounded by families similar to hers. yet, she still longed for a Christmas tree and an Easter egg hunt like she had seen and read about. She had never been able to see herself in the books she read, which made her feel like her family was wrong. Newman's feelings as a young girl show that there needs to be much more diversity in children's literature to represent the numerous different types of people and families today.
Newman also discusses the controversy her book has caused and points out that her book along with others in the GLBTQ category do not deal with sex, they deal with families. Furthermore, children do not perceive sex from those stories. It is the adults, who feel the GLBTQ books need to be banned, that perceive sex from the text. But, GLBTQ literature for children are not about sex they are about people who are in love with each other and their families. What is the harm in that? Her conclusion sums it up best,
"What leads you to believe that every child sitting in your child's classroom or library comes from a home with a mother and father? Why do you think that htere are no children in your child's classroom or library with lesbian or gay parents, siblings, aunts, uncles, grandparents, neighbors and friends. What messages are you giving to all children, when you pretend there is only one type of family, and render the rest invisible?"
No comments:
Post a Comment