Public Discourse: What We're Not Saying

By Lacey Gunter

I recently started a new job. I enjoy the job. It's not too demanding. My colleagues are friendly, welcoming and considerate of my time. It is an ideal situation, but it has been an adjustment.

Prior to taking the job, I spent that last year and a half being a stay at home mom.  I had done one big consulting gig, which was 6 weeks of stressful, sleepless, work, work, work. But other than that, it was just me, my home and my family.  It was lovely.

Along with the closeness and attention I was able to give to my children, I also really enjoyed the greater freedom I had to write. I was writing very frequently, improving and loving it. But tight finances, my youngest starting preschool and the ideal job popping up and dangling itself in front of me and my hubby inevitably threw a kink in it all.

Luckily, I have quarantine my working time to when my kids are in school, other than two hours of babysitting time. But that has come at the cost of loosing most of my free time I was using to write. I am still fitting some in, but nowhere near as much as I want and sometimes I feel guilty doing it.

In this state of barely treading water to stay afloat, I read an article yesterday about not enough women reaching the highest ranks in my profession and what to do about it. I was rather surprised about the level of 'political correctness' to it. We statisticians tend to be very thorough issue addressers, not shying away from the elephant in the room as that often leads to biased results and conclusions. However, in all the author's discussion of work climates being unfavorable to women, never once did she bring up the idea that the work environment is unfavorable to mothers.

As interesting and worthy of a discussion that may be here, what I am musing over is how often I see that happening lately. It seems like political correctness has become an accepted avenue for censuring certain topics or points of view. Much of the time these topics or view points are quite reasonable and worthy of discussion. There is nothing shameful about wanting to have a family. And there is nothing wrong with wanting to be the one who raises and nurtures your children. In fact, I have rarely met a working mom who doesn't struggle with this, at least in some part.  Yet treating this as a valid issue has become taboo in much of public discourse on this topic.

This isn't the only topic, either. It seems like nearly anything classified as being related to 'morals' has been given the cold shoulder by political correctness in the attempt to not offend some small segment of the population. Much of these morally related ideas are well accepted by the vast majority of people in society and well accepted as being beneficial for a well functioning civilization. Yet political correctness would deem that we are not supposed to talk about it that way. How is it in the name of free ideas and acceptance of others we came to accept such oppressive censorship?

"Banned" Books and "Clean" Media

This week is Banned Books Week. The entire blogosphere is alight with posts about the benefits of reading banned books, posts about how we shouldn't ban books, posts about the First Amendment (sorry, non-US readers, I don't know what clause this falls under for you), posts about how lives have been changed by reading a book that was on a banned list.

As members of the LDS church, we strive to seek out uplifting media. The church officially gave one hard-and-fast rule in the nineties, that members should avoid viewing R-rated movies, which quickly became obsolete. The standards for MPAA ratings shifted, and as LDS.org says, relying on the MPAA to regulate the content of your media is like "playing Russian roulette with your standards."

So now the official standard is to find media (in all its forms) that is "uplifting... wholesome... [and] promotes good thoughts."

Which means there's no longer a hard-and-fast rule. Which means you need to think for yourself. Which means you need to let others do the same. What uplifts you may not do the same for another, and vice versa.

So how does this relate to Banned Books Week?

Most books, as I'm sure you've guessed, are banned because of parental requests through schools. But that's not always the case. Books can be pulled from store shelves due to customer complaint and library shelves due to patron complaints.

The most common reasons books are banned are (1) sexually explicit - though this often includes sexual themes, not sexual acts* (2) profane language, (3) unsuited for the age group - this is the catch-all, "I can't put my finger on why, but I just don't want my kid reading it", (4) Satanism - any magic gets this label, including Harry Potter and Narnia, (5) violence, (6) religious viewpoint.

Religious. Viewpoint.

Over the last ten years, 291 titles have been banned (most of them are banned broadly and repeatedly, resulting in thousands of petitions) in schools for having a religious theme. Stephenie Meyer's Twilight series was often banned for being too violent and sexually charged, until book three came out and Edward announced he was a virgin and wanted to remain so until marriage. Then the book was challenged for having a religious viewpoint.

Parents all over the United States are successfully having books removed for having a religious viewpoint. This includes the Bible. Religious texts of any kind are not allowed in school or public libraries. Searching my (extensive) public library for "Book of Mormon" brings up a slew of anti-Mormon hate-books and the Broadway musical soundtrack.

Let's think about that: We, collectively as a nation, are more okay with anti-religious hate than we are with Christ's message of love and forgiveness. Look back to the reasons books are banned. We are more okay with violence than we are with sex, even if it is consensual, non-graphic sex.

Looking at a list of the most popular banned books of all time (compiling sales with successful bans over the entire twentieth century), The Bible tops the list. Virtually every classic work of literature makes the list. Les Miserables is a powerful metaphor of God's redeeming love and the juxtaposition of mercy and justice. But it features an unwed mother who turns to prostitution to survive, so it gets banned. Canterbury Tales, The Scarlet Letter, Oliver Twist, Sherlock Holmes (it teaches kids to lie and spy!), and The Diary of Anne Frank are all on the list.

Sorry, 13 year old girl, your thoughts are inappropriate for teenagers.

While those books contain some content that some people might find objectionable (particularly if taken out of context), I argue that those titles all fall under the category of "wholesome" and "uplifting." Les Miserables stands, in my opinion, as one of the most beautiful works of literature to preach the Gospel of Christ without actually being a religious text. Here on MMW, just last week, we had a post recommending The Hunger Games as being "squeaky clean." The series tops the list of books banned in 2010 and 2011**. Parents cited them as being anti-ethnic, anti-family, insensitive, and being full of offensive language, occult/satanic themes, and violence.  (Looking at that list makes me believe the people requesting and approving the ban have not, in fact, read the books)

Here's the TL;DR version: If one woman who is seeking out clean, uplifting, wholesome media sees The Hunger Games  as filling that role, what right do you have to prevent her from reading it? What right do you have to demand the book be taken from shelves across libraries and stores? Control what happens in your own home. Make suggestions. Ask for alternate assignments for your children if you need to.

Don't ban books.

*For the purpose of this post, and because of logic, I grouped the bans based on "homosexuality" with "sexual content," though homosexuality is usually listed as its own category. 

** Books are usually only banned when they're popular. Book banners apparently have short attention spans and forget about those evil books once they're not on the bestseller lists anymore.