The Media and the lack of Censorship to young Children...

[palabravampiress]

As an older sister of a four year old brother who thinks Spike is awesome. I make sure to only let him watch episodes that are not based on Spuffy getting it on. I will let him watch some parts of episodes that I know are not "bad" He just likes watching Spike beat up the bad guys like on Transformers or Power Rangers. So yeah I think that censorship is definatly an important things for adults to do and take care of. They need to watch out for what their kids (or younger brothers) are watching.

As much as I'm against public, mandatory censorship, I do have to admit to having done some private censorship of my own in my day. After reading Oliver Twist, I was so shaken by the description of Nancy's murder that I refused to loan the book to my little sister. During a recent conversation I recommended it to her and she sort of snorted. "What?" I asked. She said, "No, I never read it! You wouldn't let me! You said it was too violent." Lol.

That was years and years ago. She's an adult, now, so I'd gladly loan her anything - especially Spuffy! Now, though, my sister's the prude. I got her to watch Entropy with me last month. She was mostly bored, but the Tara/Willow kiss totally freaked her out. Her nose got all scrunchy and she said "eww." I was like, "What? Something happy had to happen! These two are adorable. You don't even know."

 

[Buffy Summers]

Disclaimer: I am not a parent and don't actually plan on ever being (though I do have ideas of how I'll raise my kids if I ever do have them).

I think kids are smarter and more stable than people give them credit for. I'm doing a lot of reading on Christian objections to Harry Potter etc. for my thesis, and it's amazing how many people worry about their children becoming involved in the occult because of a book they read. I think if more parents sat down with their kids and discussed what the kids are seeing on TV and reading in books, they'd realize that the kids KNOW that pointing a stick at someone and speaking Latin won't do anything. They're not blank slates just waiting to be inscribed with anything that comes along. Kids have the ability to think critically just like every other human being, they just have less experience to do it with. That's what parents are for.

See I'm not talking Harry Potter as damaging, I'm talking about 5 year olds playing Grand Theft Auto...

I read an article a few weeks ago (and if anyone's interested I'll try to find it again and link to it) about how Americans idolize youth now. It's not "cool" to act your age; you have to be 21 for as long as possible, even when you're a parent, 40, and too old to be acting like a kid. We don't teach people to grow up, we teach them that being mature and "old" is "lame." Media and other cultural forces are aimed at young people (and people who try to act young). Is it any wonder we're in the situation we're in, when this is going on?

That's a really interesting point, and very true I think. Parents want to be "cool" instead of parents...

 

[Blondie Bear]

See I'm not talking Harry Potter as damaging, I'm talking about 5 year olds playing Grand Theft Auto...

Unfortunately, Grand Theft Auto does not fall within the parameters of my thesis. 😀

But I think you're right; there are some things that it's just silly to protect a child from and some things that NOBODY should be exposed to, let alone a 5 year old (my opinion of GTA). It's up to the parent to know the difference. I think the major problem is that parents don't want kids who can think for themselves, they want "picture perfect carbon copies" as Buffy once said. So rather than allowing them to be exposed to things that the parents might not agree with and discussing the reasons why they don't agree with them with the kids, they just lock their kids into this little box where they can only read certain things and watch certain things, not realizing that kids are smart and enterprising and will figure out how to read/watch things that their parents have forbidden, usually BECAUSE they're forbidden.

 

[Bangelxx]

I am actually only 13 but I REALLY like Buffy!!! Nobody can deprive me from it!!! I agree about the bratz...whats with that??! and cell-phone...I wont be getting one of those anytime soon!

 

[Blondie Bear]

I don't think this is THE article I read (it was several weeks ago and I don't quite remember) but it makes the same points:
spiked-essays | Essay | The children who won't grow up

 

[Buffy Summers]

I am actually only 13 but I REALLY like Buffy!!! Nobody can deprive me from it!!! I agree about the bratz...whats with that??! and cell-phone...I wont be getting one of those anytime soon!

I'm not saying a 13 year old shouldn't have a Bratz doll, but my 7 year-old niece really doesn't need any more of that influence, and she's had those dolls for years. I remember when I went to the toy store to buy her a Skipper barbie doll, I was shocked by how little Barbie stuff there was (I think it's picked up recently though). I mean, I could hardly FIND the Barbie section. And they didn't make Skipper anymore lol. They made such a big deal about Barbie creating unrealistic body type images, but my GOD at least she was covered in clothes unlike the Bratz dolls.

 

[DarklyDreamingDrusilla]

See I'm not talking Harry Potter as damaging, I'm talking about 5 year olds playing Grand Theft Auto...-Buffy Summers

Yeah, I actually did a debate in school about children and video games. I think that parents do kind of need to realize that when a game says M for mature it is probably not too good for little kids to be playing. On the Harry Potter issue on the other hand I think that is a little bit crazy. I think that people do need to understand that kids are smart enough to understand that there is a difference between real life and fiction. JK Rowling wrote that as a fictional story and people need to take that into consideration. I read those books as a kid and I turned out just fine. I think. :lmao:

 

[Buffy Summers]

The other thing is that Harry Potter is a kids story. GTA is not.

 

[Bangelxx]

LOL ok I hope you didnt think that I have bratz because no i dont!!!ahhhh! lol I just mean that they are really ugly and weird for young children to play with if you get my point!!!

 

[Wicked]

I mean a prime example is I know school aged kids (9 year olds) who have cell phones! Cell phones! Once upon a time only "business folks" carried cell phones or had car phones or beepers (hahaha remember those?)

I never got a mobile til I was 16. I was talking to a friend a couple weeks ago and she told me her 8 year old nephew has 2 mobiles. One for school friends and one for other friends. Why? Never mind the fact that he has 2 but why does he need one at all? Hes 8!

It got me thinking about so much more...The Bratz dolls and the message that they send? Was Barbie that ummm for a lack of a better term "skanky"?
Possibly but wow! These are what 5 year olds are playing with them and mimicking their style sense?!?!?!?!

I hate the Bratz (or Slutz as I call them). Have ever since I first saw them. No clue how manufacturers got away with that one. And Barbie has definitely changed from the days when I had them.


but I thought it would prove to be an interesting discussion anyhow...In all reality I dont think I would deem Buffy even as appropiate for a 10 year old...maybe 12 or 13 but THATS pushing it...is my problem that I am a prude or am I in any way right to feel this way?
[/QUOTE]
I agree. TV shows, video games and movies have certificates for a reason. Buffy is a 12 and 15 here. Angel season 1 is an 18. There is a reason for that. Its not a kids show. The language (in particular, coming from Anya) is not language children should be watching on TV. That and all the sex and violence of course 😛

I wouldn't go so far as to say Buffy is inappropriate for 10 year olds... honestly its cleaner than most shows.....

Not really. There are a lot cleaner shows out there. And like I say, its a 15 for a reason


This

Let's say you think Buffy is too violent for, say, a 6-year-old. Maybe you're afraid that said 6-year-old will be unable to differentiate between real life violence and TV violence

Doesnt necessarily have anything to do with this

and, while playing "Buffy" with her friends, will injure another child with a stick. That sounds like a reasonably likely scenario, does it not?

This is a subject that really bothers me. Ever since music and movies started getting the blame for idiot children murdering people. Yes I believe the bottom quote is a likely scenario. Kids mess around and get hurt. Big deal. We all did it. But thats just kids playing. The first quote on the other hand is a different matter. Not being able to differentiate between real life and TV has nothing whatsoever to do with the show. If someone watches a violent show and copies what they watched, that is not the shows fault. Millions of people watch the same shows and dont copy them. If someone does then there is a problem with the child (or adult or whoever) If they cant differentiate, then they have a problem that has to be looked into.

I understand how it is more difficult for a 6 year old to understand but thats why they arent supposed to watch these things 😛

Just so we're clear, Im not arguing here. I agree with your post (well the rest of it) its just a subject that bothers me a lot.

The question here is... is a child who watches Buffy really statistically more likely to suffer negative social side effects (in this case, harming another child while on the playground) than a child who doesn't watch Buffy?

I'm not sure it's exposure to media that causes loss of innocence as much as it is actually having a child experience something. The only way that media could contribute would be by somehow actively causing that experience to occur. Because most people are able to view violent or sexual material without becoming violent or hyper-sexual themselves, I can't say that I think exposure to violent or sexual material really has the power to cause a child to actively experience something in such a way as to constitute loss of innocence.

What do you guys think?

I agree with this part

I think exposure to it desensitizes children to those kind of things, so they don't see things as wrong or dangerous when they should. I would ask, why do you think kids today are so different? What is different these days if it's not early exposure to "grown up things" through the media?

A lot of the difference is in the parents. Or it is here at least. PArents are getting younger and younger and can barely be responsible for themselves, nevermind a child. That has more to do with it than anything. Parents shouldnt let their children be exposed to these things (as much as possible anyway). Its not the medias fault. The media has always been like this. That part hasnt changed.

I also do not believe that the government/FCC has any right to dictate what's appropriate for the American public. Broadcast TV should have SOME guidelines but I don't believe it's THAT hard for a parent to keep inappropriate shows from their children, and if their kids want to see it badly enough, they'll find a way.

This is ridiculous. What if, for example, the parent hadnt seen what the kid was gonna watch? If there was no certificate on it they might just say "go ahead" cos they wouldnt know any better. If it has a 15 or 18 (or the American equivalent) then the parent knows if its suitable. Thats the entire point. A parent cant be expected to watch absolutely every single thing the kid want s to watch, or listen to every song or play every game. They need a guideline to help.

As an older sister of a four year old brother who thinks Spike is awesome. I make sure to only let him watch episodes that are not based on Spuffy getting it on. I will let him watch some parts of episodes that I know are not "bad" He just likes watching Spike beat up the bad guys like on Transformers or Power Rangers. So yeah I think that censorship is definatly an important things for adults to do and take care of. They need to watch out for what their kids (or younger brothers) are watching.

Fights on Buffy are not remotely the same thing as fights in Transformers or Power Rangers. How can you say they arent the "bad" parts? The violence is much more realistic than kids cartoons or TV shows.


Rant over. For now 😛

 

[Jill_Valentine]

Age ratings shouldn't be considered the be all and end all. It depends on the child.

 

[ckg927]

Vicariously: Considering Barbie's history(the Lilli doll,sold in Germany,was Barbie's direct antecedent-based on a newspaper comic strip,she was portrayed as a working girl who knew what she wanted and wasn't above using men to get it),yeah you could say she was a...well,you know. 😉

Not being a parent myself(I act as uncle to a niece and nephew),I have zero problems with a family determining what is suitable for their children to hear/see,depending on how mature they are. (And don't kid yourself...some kids are mature for their age,almost as if they have an old soul in a young body.)

What I absolutely DETEST,with a passion,is any pressure group that presumes to know what is best for us unwashed peons. (And that includes groups like the Parents Television Council,"Morality in Media",the "American Family Association",Focus on the Family,etc.) They assume that we're going to be morally corrupted by....let's see,PPV porn in our hotel rooms,seeing sex(simulated as it may be)on television,gay people on TV,etc. These folks have every right to voice their takes,as wrong-headed as they may be. And I have the right to tell them,"You're full of crap."

Let me close with a quote that MSNBC's Keith Olbermann posted on the now MIA blog Bloggermann(concerning FotF's James Dobson asserting(with no proof)that SpongeBob SquarePants was part of the "pro-homosexual" agenda): "At some point,some of these people are going to wake up and find that the great secular assault they see on their children was,in fact,a bogeyman created to hide their own bad parenting. If they can't convince their own kids of the appropriateness of their religion and values,then the religion,or the values,or the convincing,must not have been very good."

The link in full(sorry,the e-mail address doesn't work):

Bloggermann: Separating the Gannons from the Guckerts - Bloggermann - MSNBC.com

 

[Randy Giles]

People who think SpongeBob SquarePants, the Teletubbies, and The Wiggles are "gay" in any way DISGUST me. Especially the Teletubbies, those rumors were pretty much disproven but people still talk about it. How can babies act "gay"? The fact that people put so much pressure on such young people to conform to certain gender roles is sick.

And as far as SpongeBob...the sponge and Patrick are more like children than anything, plus they're not human, and technically they're sexless, right? *sigh* And if they didn't act silly and flambouyant the show wouldn't be funny. Doesn't make 'em guerrilla warriors in a covert homosexual war.

 

[Blondie Bear]

People who think SpongeBob SquarePants, the Teletubbies, and The Wiggles are "gay" in any way DISGUST me. Especially the Teletubbies, those rumors were pretty much disproven but people still talk about it.

Actually, Tinky Winky IS gay.
The Cartoon Closet - By Jacob Weisberg - Slate Magazine

 

[Allycat]

Yes, children are growing up faster than ever, and no, that's not a good thing. I do believe something should be done about it, but censorship is not the way to go. I detest censorship in most of its forms and I don't think that telling your children not to watch something is gonna ensure that they don't. In fact, it probably increases the chance that they'll go over to a friend's house when his/her parents are away and then secretly watch it together. If they want to watch programming that you deem inappropriate, you should watch it together, so that you can shed some light on what they see and you can help them interpret the questionable content correctly in accordance to your own world view. I think the biggest contributing factor in children aging faster is the fact that there are no more stay-at-home-moms (or dads). Well, there are, but not quite as many as there used to be. It's been proven by many a psychologist that children who grow up with the constant present of one of their parents develop (for lack of better word) "better". This complaint btw, is not aimed at working women. Women have as much right to work as men. But, if you have children and if you can afford it, one of the parents should quit their job. My real complaint is the "if you can afford it". Life has become so expensive for a lot of people, that having one parent stay at home is not an option, because otherwise it's impossible to support a family. Herein, lies the real problem I think. And, if you ask me, this is a problem that's only gonna get worse.

 

[Vicariously]

I really appreciate everyones responses to this thread...I feel like there has been a real debate here but yet everyone was able to stay cool and collected while sharing their point of view. That says alot for this community as a whole.

I have had a few days to think about the whole thing and this is what I think, I've have decided what will work for me and my kids and thats all I can do to protect them. They are who I need to focus on and thats it. Its not my job to protect others peoples kids. Ultimately I can't get upset about how other parents "parent" their children, I just need to focus on mine.

This whole thread was really started in regards to kids that are a bit older than mine...when some parents kinda take a step back and let the kid raise themselves...I struggle with my Mother doing so with my siblings...who are YEARS younger than me. I guess I just have higher expectations of my mom and of my brother and sisters...

lately I have experienced alot of disappointment in the morals my siblings have for their age...and I look at my mom to correct them and she quite frankly is "too busy" and it infuriates me. She blames the morals they have on TV and their friends. In some ways I can see her argument...(target audience is often times VERY young! in my opinion)

ultimately I agree that things should have ratings...I am able to check a rating and easily identify why it was rated as such and then make the decision on whether or not it is suitable for my kids. I will be appreciative of these ratings the older my kids get. As it is, my kids are young and most of what they see is cattered acceptably to young kids and my husband and I usually watch with them.

There have been times when I have seen or heard something as simple Elmo doing something I dislike and see my sons mimick and I quickly correct them (for example elmo in grouchland... we have several selfish characters and the take and say mine and such, I say they mimicked because my son used the exact voice and such after watching LOL)

anyhow it doesnt mean I have banned elmo because of it...my son enjoys him and as a parent it my job to say "no no son just because Elmo says it doesnt mean you can" LOL

I guess what I am saying is that in all reality I really just wanted peoples opinion on the media and influences on children and have concluded that most feel the same way I do...and that responsibilty lies in the parents.

I still say Bratz are skanks though 😛 LOL 😛

 

[white avenger]

Age ratings shouldn't be considered the be all and end all. It depends on the child.

Actually, it depends on the parent. If the parents would take the time to find out what their children are watching and to teach their children the difference between the fantasy on the screen and the reality of everyday life, there would be no need for a rating system at all. I grew up in a home where my father and mother took the time to explain those differences to me, and I have tried to do the same with my son.

The problem is that the parents either don't know or don't care what their kids are watching, an never take the time to find out. If the parents won't do it, the government has to, and the closest to an affective system that they could come up with is an arbitrary age system which gets more and more complicated because it simply doesn't work.

 

[justanotherjen]

I wish more people would take that stance. I don't like people telling me how to raise my kids (as I'm sure you don't like either). My kids watch pretty much anything. That is my right as a parent. They are allowed to watch anything G-PG without me in the room and can ask to watch PG13 movies without me around. Other PG13 movies and some R rated movies they can watch with me so I can explain things to them. They are 7, 6, 5 and almost 2. That is how my parents raised me and my brother and we turned out fine.

My 5yo loves Buffy (although all the Buffy/Spike stuff is going to be off limits for awhile--some of those scenes bordered on soft-core porn, lol). I think I'll convince her to dress up as Buffy for Halloween this year. Or Willow. She likes Willow best. We actually all just had a discussion on our favorite characters as we watched Angel the other day. Even my 21 month old knows who Buffy is.

I just really wish people would worry about raising their own kids and not about how I raise mine. I really hate censorship groups. If there is something on TV that I don't want my kids watching then I won't let them watch and teach them why I don't want them to watch it. Everyone should do the same.

 

[Edmund Blackadder]

This is one of those topics that well really infuriates me.

Not because the movie/music/TV/candy/tabacco/insert any other that will be blamed for 'kids these days' industry, but because the people that complain have more power than they want to admit because when their 13 year old gets pregnant to the school bad boy they can blame someone else and not their own neglectful parenting.

Now, obviously with every rule there are exceptions, but 999 out of 1000 if the child was given proper education from the people who are supposed to be their parents/guardians and not plonk that responsibility on someone else and then get angry at WHAT they were being taught, then complain that movies, which are popular because kids go and watch because parents let them watch(where does someone under 14 get money?), then it would be a different story.

If I had a 5 year old who dressed like a Bratz doll who should be blamed for that?
The movie that has characters?
The High street shop that sells the clothes?
The Teacher who doesn't tell the child how inappropriate it is?
The parent who buys them?

Don't give me this pester power bull either. If you have a child you have a responcibility to educate them and teach them and feed, clothe and entertain you have the power not evil corporations.

 

[justanotherjen]

This is one of those topics that well really infuriates me.

If I had a 5 year old who dressed like a Bratz doll who should be blamed for that?
The movie that has characters?
The High street shop that sells the clothes?
The Teacher who doesn't tell the child how inappropriate it is?
The parent who buys them?

Don't give me this pester power bull either. If you have a child you have a responcibility to educate them and teach them and feed, clothe and entertain you have the power not evil corporations.

I completely agree. My girls (7 and 5) have more Bratz dolls then I can count (mostly the little kid ones which are really cute) but I would never in a million years allow them to dress that way and they don't think it is appropriate.

It's pretty simple--I buy the clothes, I buy mostly what I like. We negotiate on something but pretty much if I don't like it I don't buy it for them. They can whine and complain all they want but all that is going to do is make me take something else away from them (probably the dolls) and they don't want that.

I think too many parents are trying too hard to reason with their little kids or be their best friends instead of being parents. In my house "because I'm the mother and I said so" is a perfectly acceptable response to any question. I don't have to explain my reasons to them. They are the kids, I'm the parent.

That being said, I also give them a lot more freedom then most parents. I already wrote about how they are allowed to watch almost anything. They also get their own meals most of the time. They love the responsibility (as I did as a kid). My oldest 2 (7 and 6) know how to use the microwave and toaster and can get breakfast or lunch for themselves. I think kids can understand and handle a lot more then most people give them credit for. I know my kids can.