The unbelievable case against beloved children’s stories

By | June 13, 2013

The unbelievable case against beloved children’s stories

According to results presented by a researcher during a recent conference, parents who read their children books featuring the Berenstain Bears, among other characters, are putting the next generation at risk.
Nora Timmerman and Julia Ostertag, obviously lunatic leftists of the highest order, were among those who prepared research papers for the annual Congress of the Humanities and Social Sciences held recently in Canada.
They contend stories featuring animals – such as cartoon protagonists Arthur and Franklin – who act like humans are detrimental in a litany of ways, despite the fact generations of children grew up on just such fare with no evidence of negative influence.
Primarily, Timmerman said, these stories send the wrong message to adolescents by ignoring the fact that “animals themselves may have lessons to teach us” and instead insert them into a human situation.
Anthropomorphic animals should be replaced by creatures shown in their “full richness and ambiguity,” the paper suggests.
Otherwise, Timmerman contends, adolescents won’t “come to value that experience as much or think it’s worthwhile.”
While ridiculous on its face and easily addressed with a visit to the zoo, the paper’s next contention highlights the inanity of leftist thought.
Traditional families, which are roundly ridiculed by elitist academics, is easier to sell when embodied by talking animals, the researchers claim.
These stories advance a “culture of prejudice,” Timmerman said, suggesting politically incorrect plots consisting of a mother, father, and children [gasp!] is often “more hidden when they’re inserted into a story about animals or animal form.”
Making sure there is no mistake about their research, the paper includes the outrageous opinion that “much” of the wholesome, educational content available for developing minds “reproduces and confirms, racist, colonial, consumerist, heteronormative, and patriarchal norms.”
Research from the likes of Timmerman and Ostertag, while objectively ludicrous, can be of some assistance to new parents. I suggest compiling a list of the books and cartoons these women criticize, using it as a reference for media to which your children should be exposed.
Click here to get B. Christopher Agee’s latest book for less than $5! Like his Facebook page for engaging, relevant conservative content daily.

Category: Politics

About B. Christopher Agee

B. Christopher Agee is an award-winning journalist and conservative columnist. He established The Informed Conservative and late 2011 and currently reaches an audience of millions each month through publication on several major websites. He lives in the Fort Worth, Texas, area with his wife.

Conservative Daily News allows a great deal of latitude in the topics contributors choose and their approaches to the content. We believe that citizens have a voice - one that should be heard above the mass media. Readers will likely not agree with every contributor or every post, but find reasons to think about the topic and respond with comments. We value differing opinions as well as those that agree. Opinions of contributors are their own and do not necessarily reflect those of CDN, Anomalous Media or staff. Click here if you'd like to write for CDN.
Put This Story in your Circles and Share with your Friends

One thought on “The unbelievable case against beloved children’s stories

  1. Proconlib

    The irony is that for decades the “entertainment” left at least in the form of cartoons and animated movies since Bambi in the 1950s advocated anthropomorphicly associating human sensitivities and intelligence to animals in order to advance the animal rights movement. Perhaps this is now the later, politicized stage in which children are encouraged to grow up ASAP in order to work and reproduce for The State.

Comments are closed.