lundi, juillet 17

lotta love a lotta luggage for a lotta reasons

so i've been, of late, a little lax in reading through my blogroll - not for any particular reason other than the fact that it's been way sunny out and i've been busybusy and stressed out beyond comprehension.

so anyway, today i was flipping through the list when i came across this post by the hot librarian. you know, i'm ...

i'm not even sure what i want to say at this point. the post itself is interesting to me because i, too, hit puberty at a very young age. i remember what it was like to be in PE class and get hassled by the other girls because i had breasts when they didn't - and the thin tshirt fabric of training bras does *nothing* to shield you from chilly gymnasium air, if you get my draft. i mean drift. *ahem*.

as well, i know what it is like to be called a slut for.. well every reason imaginable - whether i deserve it or not. but whatever - we've btdt in this blog (discussed my slut-dom or lack thereof, i mean) and i don't want to dwell on that particular topic again.

what i really wanted to point out was a blog thread which branched off of thl's original post. fatwalker says "The Hot Librarian is in need of prayer. Less anger and profanity. I suggest Heartcall: The Call to Prayer.365 daily devotionals from women that will encourage, teach, and unite women to pray evangelistically for lost women". fans of the hot librarian immediately rose to her defense - she is an articulate, interesting, and downright funny writer - but for me the larger issue is not thl's slut-dom or purity, but rather the implication that only 'morally right' (in both senses of the word) people should be librarians or, to broaden the spectrum, teachers.

i have some major issues with this. shocking, i know.

first of all let me quote my own comment to fatwalker: "libraries should not be 'wholesome' because that term is very exclusive - which is to say that it excludes all texts determined by the overall power structure to be *not* wholesome. in setting up this oppositional structure, we risk censoring (yes censoring) the artistic voice and the individual right to freedom of expression. how many books, which we now consider great works of literature, were once banned because they were considered 'not wholesome'?" the nazis burned books which they thought to be unwholesome. indeed, every civilization governed by extremest voices (including the united states) has attempted to silence any voice which it determined a threat to its own dogmatism.

who decides what piece of art, what text, is fit or unfit for public consumption? in 1999, a highschool in savannah, georgia that required its seniors obtain parental permission to read hamlet, macbeth and king lear. on the other hand, the canadian government has fairly strict anti-hate laws set in place to protect its subjects from vitriolic propaganda such as holocaust denial, white power literature, and other hatemongering trash. but can we make that distiction? does freedom of speech not apply unilaterally? how can we say 'my friends and i can say what we want but, since your opinions, or lifestyle, or skincolour, differs from ours - you cannot'?

where do we draw the line? can we trust our governments to keep libraries secular? or, does religion belong in the libraries and schools, in the seeming absence of a larger societal morality? at what point is the governing body protecting its citizens, and at what point are they engaging in censorship?

further reading: