Just playing devil's advocate, because I agree with most that you've said:
Don't you think kids should be kids and not little adults?
🙂
Don't you think kids should be kids and not little adults?
🙂
The Media and the lack of Censorship to young Children...
- Thread starter Vicariously
- Start date
Vicariously
living in a fantasy world
I DO! and that was what this thread was about...
That, and the medias role in aging kids?...parents tend to think its acceptable because they turn a blind eye...society seems to think its acceptable because they turn a blind eye...and in the meantime kids grow up faster and faster...I am in no way saying that things should be banned...I am saying that there has got to be some sort of happy medium. Responsibility lies in the parents, but shouldn't someone also be accountable for marketing things to kids that shouldn't be marketed to them? Didn't Camel cigarettes get into trouble for turning their spokesmodel into a kid friendly cartoon? Alot of what I am upset about is the same concept. Lets explore the Camel thing...when they did the research they concluded that Camel was trying to appeal to a younger audience to increase the desire to smoke at a younger age. guess all I was saying is I don't understand why the target audience for a lot of things that are "too grown up" is young kids and pre-teens?
no one has really answered that...
the general answer has been becasue parents don't parent...so I am left thinking ah well it doesnt matter LOL
Jill_Valentine
Sacred and Profane
Well yeah, it comes down to people's willingness to parent according to their instincts, even if that means upsetting their child for a while. When little Timmy is whining and whining and whining for the new Murderfest game on the PS360, it starts to break 'em down. We get it a lot at work, parents buying games that are intended for well, well beyond their kid's age bracket... but evidently feeling bad about it, so instead they just treat me like crap, because to them, I am the face of the evil corporate violence brainwashing.
I do think games in particular are given far more credit for "corrupting our society's youth" than they deserve largely because their parents won't/ don't/ can't play the games themselves and assume the worst. How many people who protested about GTA ever played it, I wonder? I'm not saying that game is suitable for kids, but I do think it's a far more complex form of entertainment than The Sun would have people believe.
I do favour a responsible attitude to kids and games, but more on the basis that a young child can't possibly process a game like Silent Hill well enough to come away anything other than extremely upset and freaked out. Younger players aren't going to be able to contextualise violence like that; to them it's just violence.
I don't think a ten year old is going to look at the bleeding, screaming double pelvised leg monsters and think "Hmm, Freudian. This certainly compounds James' deep seated psychological issues!". I think he's going to look at it and think "Jesus Christ, I will never sleep again."
I think the point I'm trying to stumble towards is that decisions should be made based on the kid's capacity to place the toy/ game in a healthy context. A Bratz doll won't necessarily warp your child's brain if they know that it's not a good body model. I know it's not quite that simple, but that's the gist of what I mean.
I do think games in particular are given far more credit for "corrupting our society's youth" than they deserve largely because their parents won't/ don't/ can't play the games themselves and assume the worst. How many people who protested about GTA ever played it, I wonder? I'm not saying that game is suitable for kids, but I do think it's a far more complex form of entertainment than The Sun would have people believe.
I do favour a responsible attitude to kids and games, but more on the basis that a young child can't possibly process a game like Silent Hill well enough to come away anything other than extremely upset and freaked out. Younger players aren't going to be able to contextualise violence like that; to them it's just violence.
I don't think a ten year old is going to look at the bleeding, screaming double pelvised leg monsters and think "Hmm, Freudian. This certainly compounds James' deep seated psychological issues!". I think he's going to look at it and think "Jesus Christ, I will never sleep again."
I think the point I'm trying to stumble towards is that decisions should be made based on the kid's capacity to place the toy/ game in a healthy context. A Bratz doll won't necessarily warp your child's brain if they know that it's not a good body model. I know it's not quite that simple, but that's the gist of what I mean.
Edmund Blackadder
Scooby
Vicariously said:
It is a case of Supply and demand. Fact is if someone is willing to pay for something then someone will sell it.
Again the responsibility falls on to the parents.
If their children want to wear these clothes and they are willing to buy them then the high street shops have no moral obligation to not design, make and sell these products.
If people didn't buy them the stores would then design, create and sell something else that is in demand.
No way around it, the parents are the ones that have the power and decide whether or not to use it.
Buffy Summers said:
See thats what children/kids are - they aren't little adults. Some may mature earlier than others but still there are reasons children can't do certain things and are legally unable to make certain decisions. They are children under the care of a parent or guardian.
R
randiann
Missed you too! Good point too!
Joyce Summers
Mom of a Chocoholic
The problem with their being younger target audiences for older content things is that the media corporations know that a younger audience means more opportunities for making more money. For examle trading cards, dolls, games etc, all of these are, for the most part,a younger demographic and so the corporations no matter how mature the content, try to draw them in.
However, that is not to say I blame certain shows or movies for the way children are today. When it comes down to it, the way the child behaves- attitude and seeing what is right and what's wrong- is purely down to the parent. No matter what they see in the media, I personally believe it is up to the parent to point out seen thing is wrong and/or shouldn't be repeated.
Dolls, I think, are another matter entirely. It's natural for all little girls to want dolls for Christmas and birthdays, but when the majority of us had those dolls bought us years ago, I doubt they were as, I think Vicariously said 'skanky' as the ones today. Barbie could be a considered a sexist icon she was in so many girly long skirts and ' perfect suburban mother/wife' ensembles. Now though, things like Bratz and other such brands have got the dolls in short denim skirts, black leather coats, colorful makeup. Girls want to copy what their favorite dolls wear (It's why I spent most of my childhood wishing to be a princess. Or wonderwoman. But let's not get into *that* right now) and while I believe most parents do (or at least should) say that no, they're just too young to wear that sort of thing, I think it is even harder to tell a child 'no you can't dress like your favorite doll or whatever' and some parents, sadly, just don't bother and let them. And this is what is making them grow up to soon. Clothes make the person after all. Dress up like an adult and they'll start acting like one- in all the bad ways.
As for Buffy and what age I'd deem appropriate for my child to watch that, I would honestly say that I think anything younger than ten or eleven is too young in my opinion. Not because they wouldn't understand it (as I believe they could on a basic level) but I just think the monsters and demons would scare them too much at that age, and I don't want to scar my child, haha. But again, this is up to the decision of the parent. Just if you let them watch at a young age, please remind them that stabbing people with stakes is *not* a healthy past time.....
BTW, sorry is some of that turned out a non-sensical ramble but I keep sneezing like every two minutes and so loose track of what I was saying. I think I may be getting a cold. Dammit.
However, that is not to say I blame certain shows or movies for the way children are today. When it comes down to it, the way the child behaves- attitude and seeing what is right and what's wrong- is purely down to the parent. No matter what they see in the media, I personally believe it is up to the parent to point out seen thing is wrong and/or shouldn't be repeated.
Dolls, I think, are another matter entirely. It's natural for all little girls to want dolls for Christmas and birthdays, but when the majority of us had those dolls bought us years ago, I doubt they were as, I think Vicariously said 'skanky' as the ones today. Barbie could be a considered a sexist icon she was in so many girly long skirts and ' perfect suburban mother/wife' ensembles. Now though, things like Bratz and other such brands have got the dolls in short denim skirts, black leather coats, colorful makeup. Girls want to copy what their favorite dolls wear (It's why I spent most of my childhood wishing to be a princess. Or wonderwoman. But let's not get into *that* right now) and while I believe most parents do (or at least should) say that no, they're just too young to wear that sort of thing, I think it is even harder to tell a child 'no you can't dress like your favorite doll or whatever' and some parents, sadly, just don't bother and let them. And this is what is making them grow up to soon. Clothes make the person after all. Dress up like an adult and they'll start acting like one- in all the bad ways.
As for Buffy and what age I'd deem appropriate for my child to watch that, I would honestly say that I think anything younger than ten or eleven is too young in my opinion. Not because they wouldn't understand it (as I believe they could on a basic level) but I just think the monsters and demons would scare them too much at that age, and I don't want to scar my child, haha. But again, this is up to the decision of the parent. Just if you let them watch at a young age, please remind them that stabbing people with stakes is *not* a healthy past time.....
BTW, sorry is some of that turned out a non-sensical ramble but I keep sneezing like every two minutes and so loose track of what I was saying. I think I may be getting a cold. Dammit.
B
Blondie Bear
I wanted to be Wonder Woman, too!
palabravampiress
Bidet of Evil
This debate has taken some interesting turns!
By and large, I am still in agreement with those who say that it is a parent's job to parent and that ratings or other guidelines should be helpful tools used by parents to set their policies for their children, not the be all and end all of enforceable policy designed to force parents to parent in a certain way regardless of their individual leanings. Most of us seem to be on the same page.
With regard to the Camel debacle... I don't know. When I was a child, Camel still made those cartoon camel ads. I knew who Camel Joe was, but I'm not certain whether or not that is because of the ads or because my Grandpa smoked that brand. As someone who was part of the target demographic and who had the influence of a smoker at home, and yet has never once touched a cigarette, I can't say I feel as though the Camel Joe campaign enjoyed stunning success. Rather, most of the kids that I know to have started smoking as teenagers did so at roughly the age of 13, when they were already getting too old to be influenced by a cartoon camel. They did so largely because it was "cool." It was "cool" for the same reason that drinking and smoking pot and staying out past curfew and having sex was cool... it was rebellious and against the rules.
At thirteen, I and most of my friends had learned in school (and at home, if we had good parents like mine) what the risks of all of these behaviors entailed -- and then some, as, at around that same age, one of my cousins accidentally set fire to her house and burned it down while trying to conceal her smoking. If the campaign wasn't profitable, the company wouldn't have used it. But, at the same time, I think the general law of supply and demand comes into play here. It's a chicken or the egg sort of question. Were kids buying cigarettes because of a cartoon camel, or were kids buying that brand of cigarettes because of the cartoon camel and buying cigarettes in order to meet other completely natural and age appropriate psychological needs like rebellion and independence? Personally, I vote for the latter option, and I cannot fault an industry for trying to claim a particular market share.
At around puberty, I think kids naturally hit a stage at which they begin to rebel and assert independence. In the grand scheme of history, human cultures by and large have traditionally conferred adult status and adult decision-making-abilities on individuals at roughly the onset of puberty or, more likely, just a few years after. In modern society, however, childhood is extended so that the child can complete the training that is necessary to function as an adult in this more complex sort of civilization. Our bodies haven't caught up to that, though, so the natural impulse in adolescent children is to rebel against a prolonged state of childhood. Hand in hand with that, I think, is the fact that the food surplus and certain environmental factors are contributing to the early onset of puberty, which, in turn, causes younger and younger children to behave in a manner that is typically associated with adolescence. This can be very surprising and overwhelming for parents who rightly recall the age at which they began to exhibit these behaviors as having been slightly older.
In the end, though, good parents help their children to more-or-less safely navigate this very trying life stage. I still think it all comes down to the parents. It is sad that so many parents try to use TV companies and other industries as replacement parents. Companies that advertise "inappropriate" material to children are, in my opinion, just capitalizing on neglectful or lazy parenting techniques. I don't think the companies should be blamed for that.
By and large, I am still in agreement with those who say that it is a parent's job to parent and that ratings or other guidelines should be helpful tools used by parents to set their policies for their children, not the be all and end all of enforceable policy designed to force parents to parent in a certain way regardless of their individual leanings. Most of us seem to be on the same page.
With regard to the Camel debacle... I don't know. When I was a child, Camel still made those cartoon camel ads. I knew who Camel Joe was, but I'm not certain whether or not that is because of the ads or because my Grandpa smoked that brand. As someone who was part of the target demographic and who had the influence of a smoker at home, and yet has never once touched a cigarette, I can't say I feel as though the Camel Joe campaign enjoyed stunning success. Rather, most of the kids that I know to have started smoking as teenagers did so at roughly the age of 13, when they were already getting too old to be influenced by a cartoon camel. They did so largely because it was "cool." It was "cool" for the same reason that drinking and smoking pot and staying out past curfew and having sex was cool... it was rebellious and against the rules.
At thirteen, I and most of my friends had learned in school (and at home, if we had good parents like mine) what the risks of all of these behaviors entailed -- and then some, as, at around that same age, one of my cousins accidentally set fire to her house and burned it down while trying to conceal her smoking. If the campaign wasn't profitable, the company wouldn't have used it. But, at the same time, I think the general law of supply and demand comes into play here. It's a chicken or the egg sort of question. Were kids buying cigarettes because of a cartoon camel, or were kids buying that brand of cigarettes because of the cartoon camel and buying cigarettes in order to meet other completely natural and age appropriate psychological needs like rebellion and independence? Personally, I vote for the latter option, and I cannot fault an industry for trying to claim a particular market share.
At around puberty, I think kids naturally hit a stage at which they begin to rebel and assert independence. In the grand scheme of history, human cultures by and large have traditionally conferred adult status and adult decision-making-abilities on individuals at roughly the onset of puberty or, more likely, just a few years after. In modern society, however, childhood is extended so that the child can complete the training that is necessary to function as an adult in this more complex sort of civilization. Our bodies haven't caught up to that, though, so the natural impulse in adolescent children is to rebel against a prolonged state of childhood. Hand in hand with that, I think, is the fact that the food surplus and certain environmental factors are contributing to the early onset of puberty, which, in turn, causes younger and younger children to behave in a manner that is typically associated with adolescence. This can be very surprising and overwhelming for parents who rightly recall the age at which they began to exhibit these behaviors as having been slightly older.
In the end, though, good parents help their children to more-or-less safely navigate this very trying life stage. I still think it all comes down to the parents. It is sad that so many parents try to use TV companies and other industries as replacement parents. Companies that advertise "inappropriate" material to children are, in my opinion, just capitalizing on neglectful or lazy parenting techniques. I don't think the companies should be blamed for that.
B
Blondie Bear
Very insightful.
justanotherjen
Potential
I guess my kids are strange because pretend violence and monsters don't scare them. They watch horror flicks (not real graphic ones but stuff like the Blob and things like that) and it doesn't scare them. Although, and this cracked me up, around Halloween they were watching a Goosebumbs movie (which is supposed to be geared towards kids--older kids, but kids) and it really freaked my son out. He woke up 4 times that night. He had just turned 6. I don't know what his deal was because he's seen scarier stuff then that. I think it was because it had to do with kids and he related more.
All watching Buffy has done for him is make him want to learn some martial arts like they do in the show. Actually the monsters are what they like most--they think they are fun.
And I thought I was the only parent I knew that let their kids watch but I was talking to my 7yo the other day and she said her friend Hailey's favorite character was Buffy and I said Hailey doesn't watch that show and she was like, "yes she does." Which kind of surprised me since I've known Hailey's mother for almost 20 years and I figured she'd censor that kind of stuff. Hailey's friend from school also watches with her mom and brother. So me and my daughter were having this big discussion about it.
Joyce Summers
Mom of a Chocoholic
Yes, it does depend on the child also. I'm just presuming mine will take after me and get easily scared by movie monsters haha.
I mean, I think personally I'll keep them away from it till they're older, but if in six years my daughter is trying to reach the Buffy DVDs in a desperate attempt to watch at least one episode I would let her.
Most likely I'd employ a 'We'll watch it, but if it scares you too much it's going away till puberty' Well, maybe not puberty....but you get my point. :-D
And it is nice to do the bonding thing over Buffy with family. Whether you're the parent or the child. I remember when it was airing my Mom and I would watch the episode and go into long debates about what happened. I think she loved it because I was sixteen when it aired, so I was starting to go out a little more etc and so this was the time when she could go 'aha! she's still in the house with me!!'. Because like I was gonna go out with my friends when Buffy was on. Pfft. Not a chance
R
randiann
Guest
Just wanted to say I think PV is pointing out that a six-year old is not mature enough necessarily to tell the difference between make-believe and real life. Really, it's probably be a 3-5 year old that would have this problem (and as much as I love Buffy NO child that age should watch the show it is way too grown up for them). And PV is right in that point, ask any child psychologist. Even think back to your own childhood, how often did you emulate what you saw in a movie or on tv? For example, my sister would often "walk the plank" and jump off the arm of our chair in the living room, just like Captain Hook told Wendy too in Peter Pan. And we used to pretend that we had magical powers like Alex Mac (anyone remember that show from Nickelodeon?). Kids copy what they see. They are not minature adults and can not always discern the difference between fantasy and reality.
This part also kinda bugs me. As a young parent myself (I think 20 is too young to have a baby at least), I just want to defend that it's not the actual age of the person, but the emotional maturity. I believe that even though I am young, I am responsible enough to care for my son. And you are right, parent's shouldn't let their children be exposed to subjects that are too mature for them to cope with. But it doesn't necessarily have to do with the parent's age (although you were probably talking about kids who are 14 and having babies not an old fogie like me...)
And as far as media goes (for example)...I Love Lucy isn't anything like the TV shows on today. It was considered scandalous in its time (interracial couple, first pregnancy on TV I think, sharing one bed, etc.). Now it would be considered too tame to even deserve a spot on primetime. The media is responsible for at least some of the problem too.
I have to agree with BOTD too. He is 100% right. Parent's need to step up and take care of their kids.
Edit:
Oh, wanted to add too. I see all these 9 and 10 year old girls at the mall ALONE, wearing skank clothes, wearing more makeup than I own, and talking on their cellphones about "oh my gawd did you see josh yesterday? he so wants you and like my mom told me I couldn't go out tonight but I'm going to go anyway. She's not my boss. And I even stole one of my dad's beers how cool is that" blah blah blah
People need to get off their lazy butts and take care of their kids!!! Ahh, that bugs me!!!
E
Edmund Blackadder
OH MY LORD I'VE MISSED YOU?!?!?!?!?!?!