You'd think that one of these days I'd stop being surprised when 9-year-olds make South Park references.
Well, maybe only if "you" happen to be the parent of today's version of the child, y'know, the child who also attends a very C.S. Lewis Catholic School.
But then I gotta ask: if your child is capable of making said reference, then why was there no giggling when I read the part of the teacher-chosen book for this residency which included the phrase "it throbs with strength against our poles?"
Posted by Ida at April 25, 2005 05:43 PMBecause it's a metaphor, and it contains no actual dirty words. Get them to read the place-name for South America's largest freshwater lake: Lake Titicaca. Observe what happens.
Posted by: flamingbanjo at April 25, 2005 05:52 PMTrue, dirty-sounding words are the most effective at producing dirty giggles. (And now I must quote a little Jonathan Safran Foer: "Succotash my Balzac, dipshiitake.")
I just think that if that kid is going to watch South Park he should at least be, y'know, applying it's comic lessons to his own life.
Or not watching it at all.
Posted by: ida at April 25, 2005 06:03 PMBut, wouldn't that make South Park some sort of educational program? You know how kids are about those (well, I know how kids were about those when I was a kid, but times do change, so what do I know?).
Posted by: KING COMTE I at April 25, 2005 10:01 PMSee, the actual point here is that I don't think that South Park is appropriate for any 9-year-old to watch, let alone a 9-year-old who attends a Catholic school.
Which is a whole 'nother educational thicket: public v private v Catholic v home v when I have to make a decision about this I might become one of those mothers.
Posted by: ida at April 27, 2005 11:41 AMI'm pretty sure the folks at Comedy Central would agree with you, seeing as they run SP fairly late in the evening. But, like all forbidden fruit, the kids are going to get their hands on it no matter what, unless their parents plan to lock them in closets until they turn 18.
Which is probably what many parent think private parochial school amounts to; at least that's sort of the way my dad, who attended St. Mary's & Washington Academy in Portland through high school graduation describes it.
Posted by: KING COMTE I at April 27, 2005 03:49 PMLuckily, there are parenting skills beyond the two you just described.
I think it's more likely in this case (by which I mean this case as in general and not this specific kid) that the parents actually haven't realized what it is their kids is watching.
Not all kids are the same. Not all schools are the same. There's a big difference between forbidding something outright and effectively guiding a child's choices. I don't think there's a way to make sure that a kid never does anything they're not "supposed" to--nor should that ever happen, everyone needs the opportunity to fuck up on a variety of levels--but there's an amazing amount of laissez-faire parenting out there and it makes me want to shake people. (But not babies.)
Posted by: ida at April 27, 2005 04:13 PMi draw a conclusion: just because you subject a child to something intelligent and creative, doesn't mean they will then become intelligent and creative themselves.
hmm.
Posted by: raej at April 28, 2005 12:06 PM