Posted by Helen on: 03.10.2007 /
Pete S. wrote the following in a recent comment:
Something that bothers me, is when I see kids (ages 8-11) being allowed to see R-rated movies, and the parents are footing the bill and buying the popcorn without batting an eye. We had a couple kids in a nearby school get in trouble with the law because they had been slapping the rears of some girls, repeatedly. They said they saw it in a Jackass movie and on M-tv. Because “everyone” does it, they didn’t see anything wrong with it. After spending 5 days in juvenile detention they are thinking differently, and the community is split over it….
What are your thoughts?
Comment by: Ari
1My overall “thought” is that it’s not so much that kids are watching certain things but that they are being allowed to “consume” media which – even for adults, is a bad idea. We need to engage media and the arts and teach our kids the same. There things that are inappropriate for my sensitive 5 year old that would not necessarily be inappropriate for my friend’s 5 year old.
So while the ratings can provide some insight into the content, it’s not automatically a guide for appropriateness.
I think this also extends beyond movies and tv but also to news, books, paintings, sculpture…let’s get our kids to engage art and participate in that with them so they can learn to thoughtfully and intentionally enjoy these things.
Comment by: Helen
2Thanks Ari. I really like the idea that we need to ‘engage’ rather than ‘consume’ culture. And as you said, we do it with an awareness of what our children can and can’t handle, based on our knowledge of their unique sensitivities.
Pete, I think I would frame the problem a little differently from you. It seems like you framed it as “children are going to these movies” i.e. having these movies in their life is the problem. I think the problem is more what is evidently missing from the rest of their life – i.e. a context in which values such as respect for girls is taught. If they had that context they would understand that what they saw in the movies was inappropriate rather than saying “everyone is doing it”. If they had that context, everyone around them would not be doing it. In other words, stopping children from watching certain things is not in itself going to teach them how to treat other people. They need people who will step up and teach them those things – preferably through role-modelling as well as words.
Comment by: April Terry
3You know, I have to agree with Pete. There are three boys on our street all within a year of each other. One boy is from a household that seriously limits what he watches and how long. One boy is ours, and he has a lot of limits, but some latitude is given. The third is a boy whose parents will pretty much let him see anything. If I were to give them a medal for behavior and intelligence, I would choose the one with the serious limits for Gold, my child for silver, and the third boy would get bronze.
I’m sorry, but I have a hard time thinking it is just coincidence. Is it just coincidence that the gold medal family has raised several decent, sweet, sensitive, and extremely intelligent children? No, and I see their family and wish I had been more tough from the start.
Kids are at least 80% sponge.
Comment by: Pete S
4Although I think there is definitely a place for “engaging” culture (and art) instead of “consuming” culture, I think there are fewer people than more people that do that, or have the maturity and inner balance to do so without being overwhelmed or taken-in. Most children that I meet are, well…still children: i.e. immature, not developmentally mature humans. Watching most R-rated movies is simply inappropriate because it is not age-level developmentally appropriate. Here I will weigh in with my 15 years of teaching 10 and 11-year-old boys and girls. Precious few of those children know or have the developmental capability to engage culture or art, Now, at their young ages. And if we are showing and exposing them to the hard, difficult, profane, violent part of life at this age, what will happen when they are older? They will be, almost always, a bit less sensitive and a bit more jaded and numbed to true injustice, violence, and lewdness when they are older.
In a matter of just a few years they will mature and be able to handle the content in R-rated movies: LET THEM WAIT. For the love of your children, let them wait.
Tipper Gore wrote a book entitled, “Raising PG kids in an X-rated Society.” Maybe that would be a good book to take a look at.
Comment by: Helen
5April, I think what I’m saying is, preventing kids from seeing certain things isn’t the whole answer – they also need to be taught a positive value system. And when I say taught, really I mean, ‘shown’.
If you believe that preventing children seeing certain things helps, then, I don’t have any basis for disagreeing with you.
Pete, maybe my kids are unusual, but I think my 11 year old could engage culture. I think she could already have her own talk show!
Comment by: Doreen
6I don’t have a problem with parents taking youngsters to R movies per se. I do have a problem when parents take their teenagers into an R movie, then leave for the movie across the hall.
I’ve seen R movies where I wondered why they were R, and I’ve seen PG-13s that made me question what the raters were thinking.
There seems to be more disrespect from boys toward girls these days, or at least the disrespect is manifested differently. I’m too young for the “pigtails in the inkwell;” back in my day, boys would knock the books out of your arms. I don’t recall much “touching” bad behavior (at least not in public, LOL).
The other sad thing I see too often is young girls letting boys disrespect them and not standing up for themselves. I see this at the bus stop and on the metro almost daily. The mouths on both boys and girls, whoa.
I sound like an old fart, don’t I?
sigh….
Comment by: Rachel
7I’m with you, Doreen. When I volunteered in the church youth group, I was shocked by how the kids behaved toward one another. Maybe we should start the old fart’s club!
Comment by: Pete S.
8I’m not quite sure what to say to these comments. I really think that it’s important to embrace values of respect and challenge demeaning words without relegating oneself to an “old fart’s club”, implying that your values are simply old-fashioned, out-dated, and not more important than the passing of colon gas. Really. I think there’s a problem with our culture where we allow those youngest, least experience, those most impulsive and self-centered: i.e. the most adolescent set the standard of what is NORMAL or acceptable, while those oldest, most mature, most responsible are simply “Old Farts”.
I realize that there’s probably much tongue-in-cheek, and maybe a dash of attempted humility in assigning oneself membership in the Old Fart’s Club, but I also sense a note of resignation: implying our time is past, and the time of the adolescent is supreme.
I’ve seen too much acquiesence in my life from adults that just give-in to their children’s desires to mouth off, use profanity, watch R-rated movies, etc…
Helen: I guess that each of our children are different, and it swells the heart to think that OUR child is more mature, or ready to engage culture at 10 years of age, but I think , as parents, we aren’t quite as objective when it comes to our own children. My children were responsible, wise, prudent, humble, intelligent, etc. when they were younger, but I did not let them see R-rated movies until they were of age. Period. Now they are both responsibly in college, engaged in missions, helping others, touring the world, and learning about other cultures. My son is studying in Chicago, my daughter in L.A. I attribute much of their maturity and sensitivity to other’s needs by growing up SLOWLY, not rushing to witness scenes and hear language and view violence BEFORE they were developmentally ready according to educational practices and psychology. They are fully engaging culture now, but aren’t being taken in quite so much as some of their peers. What I’m saying is: there is NO reason good enough, as far as I can tell, for RUSHING or PUSHING our children into growing up and dealing with adult themes or situations before it is developmentally appropriate.
And I don’t think I’m just being an old fart saying so.
OKay, BICBW.
shheesh. I know I may sound pushy, prudish, and too conservative, but when it comes to children: Please, err on the side of being cautious when they are young and “impressionable.” They really will have plenty of opportunities to grow up when they are…well…grown ups. There is a significant difference in brain development, moral understanding, and moving from concrete thinking to abstract thinking during the early years of adolescence. As that happens, a 14 and 15 year old can handle far more than a brother or sister just 4 or 5 years younger. There. That’s an allowance.
But I Could Be Wrong…
Comment by: Rachel
9(he-he) You have a good point, Pete! I think part of it is probably that we are just shocked to realize that we ARE the mature, responsible, older adults you refer to! I’m in my mid-30s but somehow I still think of myself as “youth.” So when I volunteered with high schoolers and realized that there was a generation gap between us, it caught me by surprise. Of course, the reason I was there was to provide wisdom and guidance and I did that.
It still comes as a surprise to me when I am yelling out the car window and wagging my finger at some middle school boys in the neighborhood who are fighting (as I did the other day) because I still can’t believe I’M really a grown-up! But lecture and wag my finger I will. And I promise not to call myself an old fart for doing it. ;-)
Comment by: Helen
10My thoughts about my children aren’t just based on my opinion, actually.
I’m glad you’re pleased with how your children have grown up. Maybe you are right that the way you raised them is the reason.
I think it’s up to parents to decide how they raise their children and to make judgments about what they are developmentally ready for.
Comment by: Pete S.
11Part of the problem is, if you’re only in your mid-thirties, and you’re identifying yourself as an OLD fart, then that would make me an ANCIENT one. And I’m not ready for that.
Comment by: Pete S.
12I wish that were true for all parents, and it may assuredly be true for you, but I have seen many parents be simply poor parents, and they pass on certain practices and dysfunctions to their children, quite often by being too permissive. One of my former students was raised to raise pot and deal in meth. He and his parents were named in an article in our local newspaper. Those parents made some judgements about what he was ready for: sure: he was ready for the family business: drug dealing. He is not an isolated case. I don’t agree with a blanket statement about “its up to parents to decide what is developmentally appropriate.” It is TRUE for some parents but I don’t know if it’s true for most parents, and I will most definitely say it’s NOT TRUE for ALL parents.
Comment by: Helen
13Pete, if parents are doing something illegal then hopefully the police will intervene; and if they are being abusive to their children hopefully family services will step in.
Apart from that though, don’t parents have the right to make the decisions about how their parents are raised? Are you saying they should not have that right? How would you have liked it if some authority dictated that you have to raise your children a certain way, rather than letting you have the right to decide?
It’s all very well to argue that it shouldn’t be up to parents, but if you argue that, who’s to say that the authority who it is up won’t end up mandating you raising your children in a way you don’t like? What if your ideas about children not being developmentally ready for things was turned against you and raising children in church was banned because the authority decided it’s inappropriate to expose children to religion before they are developmentally able to judge whether it’s true or not?
I think, like it or not, parents have to have the right to make decisions about how their children are raised, rather than that being given over to someone else. But if the parents prove abusive or are engaged in illegal activities, yes, then it’s appropriate for authorities to intervene to protect the children. I don’t think it’s appropriate simply on the basis of “I don’t like the way you’re raising your kids – I wouldn’t raise mine that way”. That falls in the area of personal choice, in my opinion.
Comment by: Karen
14Or by being too authoritarian, which can be just as damaging to children.
The best parenting style, according to research I’ve read, is neither overly permissive nor overly strict but a middle approach that sets reasonable limits but is also overwhelmingly loving, encouraging and tailored to the individual child, some of whom can handle a lot more than others depending on maturity levels.
Unfortunately, because of their own dysfunctional childhoods and their own pathologies, many parents don’t fit into that ideal and are not good parents because they err on one side or other. However, in a free society we have to give families large latitude to decide how to raise their children – that’s part of our cherished individual freedom and not something I nor anyone else will give up easily.
Any attempts to curb parents’ authority (outside of intervening when children are neglected or abused, which unfortunately happens all too often) wind up creating huge storms of controversy. For instance, here in California a politician recently floated the idea of outlawing physical punishment for children under 3. She didn’t actually introduce that legislation, she just talked about it.
Oh my gosh! You’d have thought she set off an explosion. The reactions were unbelievably negative, from all quarters, and she retracted the idea promptly after being scathed in public for a week or two.
Comment by: Pete S
15I have not promoted the idea that what I’ve been talking about should be legislated. I am encouraging parents to consider slowing down and not making their children grow up before their time.
It is amazing how defensive people can get. Sure, we all raise our kids the way we think fit. However I still don’t think it’s wise to just fold one’s arms and say I’ll do whatever and however I please just because it is how I please. I’m trying to encourage people to consider allowing their children a few more years of innocence. Check out what psychologists and educators are saying. Heed their advice. Try not to be so stubborn about your children’s minds and future just because you are going to insist raising them the way you see fit, regardless how unwise that may be to those whose training and life’s vocations may be advising you to do otherwise. I was talking about what is developmentally appropriate for 10-year-olds. Just let them BE 10-years-old instead of foisting adulthood and adolescent themes on them… That is far different than suggesting we legislate and mandate authorities to prevent such and such…..
Please, reread what I wrote and don’t make it say something it didn’t say.
Comment by: Helen
16Pete, you wrote:
I read that and I didn’t see how it could be not up to parents unless their rights were legislatively removed, so I thought that’s what you meant.
You used words differently from the way I would have. I would say it’s still up to parents, if what they are doing is consulting psychologists and educators.
Thank you for clarifying what you did and didn’t mean.
I don’t know who you wrote this to because I don’t think any parents reading this blog do that.
I’m afraid I react rather negatively to the sorts of remarks you just made, for various reasons.
First, I don’t like being ‘lectured’.
Second, I don’t like being mischaracterized negatively.
Third, I disagree with the underlying assumption that parents are unable to make decisions without consulting ‘the experts’. I don’t have as much faith in ‘experts’ as you do. They have been wrong too many times, in my experience. And the psychologists and educators who write books don’t know MY children.
The approach “you can’t trust your own instincts – you need to do what the experts say” – reminds me of the conservative Christian environment I used to be in, and not in a good way.
Even then I fought back as a Mom, reasoning that “If God gave me these children then that means he will also equip me to raise them” – and by equip I didn’t mean, he’d make sure I bought the right books.
The human race would have died out long ago if parents were unable to raise children without psychologists and educators.
If relying on ‘experts’ has worked for you then, great – I’m happy for you that it has. My experience is otherwise.
Having said all that, I’m interested in what the psychologists and experts say, so please provide links to relevant articles.
Comment by: Laura M.
17Amen !
Comment by: Laura M.
18One thing that worries me about Pete’s line of thinking is that American children are among the most sheltered, if not the most sheltered children in the world.
If they can’t handle an R- rated movie once in awhile, how do the billions of children who are living an R-rated life survive?
Comment by: Doreen
19My mother loves to tell the story about how when she was pregnant with me (her first born), someone gave my parents a copy of Dr. Spock. My mother read a few pages and threw it out.
Years later she wanted to teach languages in NY State but the state would not recognize the degrees she earned from universities in the actual HOMES of those languages. So, mom started down the BA route. One of her 1st classes was child pyschology. At the time, she had 3 of us. The prof was a 20-something, unmarried, childless adjunct whom mom butted heads with frequently. She gave up the BA dream and became a sub instead….
:)
Comment by: Helen
20Laura M wrote:
Great question, Laura.
lol Doreen – it sounds like your Mom would understand very well why the idea of relying on ‘experts’ doesn’t appeal to me!
Comment by: Helen
21Pete, if 8-11 year olds aren’t developmentally ready for R-rated movies, are they developmentally ready for what is taught in church?
When Mel Gibson portrayed the crucifixion of Jesus in a movie, it was assigned R because of the graphic violence and brutality in it. Does that mean 8-11 year olds are not developmentally ready for this story? What do psychologists and educators say about that?
Church has been the biggest exposer of my children to what I’ve felt they’re not developmentally for. I’ve mentioned this before: when my son was 8 he was reading the bulletin and said “What does that word mean?”, pointing at the word ‘pornography’. My children sat in church with me and heard the sermons and there were often parts of those which I thought were unsuitable for children. And I stopped listening to Christian radio stations in the car with my children because when the news came on it often was about topics which seemed unsuitable. The public radio news was much less focused on sex than the Christian news, on the whole.
And what about scary teachings about satan, demons and hell? Should the church be doing a better job of leading the way in being respectful of what children are developmentally ready for? And what about Christian schools?
From a Christian school curriculum for fourth grade i.e. 9 and 10 year olds:
Comment by: NCxian
22The thing that I am most likely to worry about in movies is violence. I can have a conversation with my children (8 -11) about most things, and explain things that are intellectually challenging for them. But I can’t remove the image of a head exploding across a wall, or one person mercilessly and methodically torturing another from their memories. I don’t want them to become accustomed to that in such a way that they lose the ability to be horrified by it.
Comment by: Helen
23NCxian – I can understand where you’re coming from because I know that images from movies stick in my head whether I want them to or not. So I expect it might well be that way for my children too. I don’t like to watch violent movies myself, for that reason.
I agree with Laura that unfortunately some children see horrible violence in real life. But insofar as I can protect mine from seeing it I would like to.
Comment by: NCxian
24My reasoning exactly.
Comment by: Pete S.
25Now this comment concerns me, or perhaps confuses me. I’m more than uncomfortable or distressed by what may be being implied.
By saying this, are you generally remarking that kids all over the world live in an R-rated world, meaning they live amongst violence, poverty, disease, etc. and therefore our children should come to terms with their comforts and ease in life, showing gratitude for their fortune and responsibility to help those in need? Then I agree. But that’s a stretch of interpretation departing rather dramatically from what I have been writing about.
I’ve been writing about R-rated movies: horror flicks where teenagers are butchered and dismembered by chain saws, horror flicks where possessed people return like zombies to terrorize, cannabalize, destroying people in the most perverse and twisted ways. Hollywood terror and violence in which people may be blown to bits every two or three minutes on the screen. This isn’t real, folks, like they do in Hollywood. I’m talking about Hollywood, not documentaries.
If there are innocent children in the world who unwillingly are subjected to abuse and violence, why do you think there is some wisdom to willingly deprive our children of innocence, subjecting them to images of mayhem and murder, when we have a choice to simply not allow them to see these images when they are but 10-years-old??? And you chastise me for lecturing.
Fine. I will stop writing. I do not think I have anything in common with people who are eager to subject their children to such filth, violence and degradation. Willing to do so when they have a chance and choice to simply say no. But perhaps some parents have become so numb, so far away from a common moral law that they just think I’m ranting without reason or justification.
I will protect and shelter my daughter until she is older. If giving shelter or “sheltering” has become anathema, then food is poison, clothings are instruments of bondage, songs are screams of agony and common sense is nonsense.
What worries me about Laura M.’s comment is the idea that we should willingly subject our children to hideous violence, profanity and horror: Betraying the sacred trust we have to nurture those very vulnerable ones who rely on us for shelter and protection.
You need not remind me of an R-rated world. To perpetuate such a world, or assume that it is the new “normal” is abhorrent to me.
As far as comments about teaching kids about Hell. I don’t, my church never has, and scare tactics are a pitiful way of encouraging Christian discipleship. That’s my answer. I’d not have my daughter attend such a class either. I’m sorry that you think Church classes are worse than slasher movies or Freddy Krueger.
I would not let my daughter see the Passion of Christ either. She will be able to see it when she’s older. That’s my point. When she’s older and can handle the emotional impact and put it in perspective. It just happens to be based on history. Most R-rated movies are based on Hollywood’s fascination with the profane, the sick, the violent and the vile…and yes, they are usually works of fiction.
Comment by: Helen
26Pete wrote:
Pete, am I “eager to subject my children to graphic violence”? Let’s see what I wrote in comment #23:
Evidently no, I am not.
What I actually wrote was:
My children have not seen the horror movies you mention, so I was not saying Church is “worse” than them.
By the way, I think part of the issue is your depiction of R-rated movies. It seems to me they vary a lot in content. When I think of an R-rated movie it could be made for ‘shock value’ or it could be what I consider a pretty good movie but has a few ‘thematic elements’ that caused it to get an R rating. If it’s the latter kind I wouldn’t necessarily stop my children going to it. But that makes me no closer to wanting them to go to a movie full of graphic violence, made for ‘shock value’.
Anyway, R-rated movies have an R-rating. The problem with church is, it doesn’t have a rating or warning. The bulletin and sermons do not include the disclaimer “may contain thematic elements unsuitable for children”. If they did then at least I’d be warned and feel that the church was appropriately attentive to what might and might not be developmentally appropriate for my children. You said you haven’t heard anything scary about hell at your church – I respect that. What about sins which only adults commit? Do you hear about them in sermons?
Fine – no-one has tried to argue you out of that here, have they? You are the only one in this discussion who has been criticizing what other parents do – you were the one who wrote this:
What sort of reaction to that were you expecting? (And is this how your church recommends you talk to other adults, by the way?)
Comment by: Pete S.
27Helen:
I think we are talking/writing past each other instead of with each other or to each other.
Yes, I’m relieved that you don’t let your children see slasher movies. But I suppose you might say, “so what?” even if I wasn’t relieved. I guess that’s just how I am. I do find it disconcerting when other parents allow their children to view visually disturbing media. Similarly I am concerned about many video games. I am particularly sensitive to the needs and vulnerability of children, and therefore tend to focus more on parental responsibilities than parental rights. Our society as a whole tends to focus on rights rather than responsibilities. In order to help society find a balance, I often focus on the responsibilities side (which may include encouraging parents to be more cautious) because I know that many other people will be championing the “rights” side.
Virtually every time I post in a blogsite like this I am not intentionally writing to one person. If I were I’d e-mail them. If I didn’t have their e-mail then I wouldn’t be personal. Please don’t take every word I write as if we are having a private, personal conversation. Many of my words are really written to a wide audience: whoever may chance upon this blog later, or those who read without responding.
As far as being stubborn (the word I think you object to), I apologize if I sounded personal. I really have no idea if you’re stubborn or not. I know I am upon occasion. I don’t mean you to feel like I think you are unwise. However I do still think it is generally unwise for any parent to subject their young children to R-rated movies for the reasons I’ve expressed throughout the above dialogue.
Others may disagree. It is perfectly fine for others to feel that I am too restrictive. We may differ in these opinions. You may be relieved to know that I’m not mounting a campaign to legislate my opinions, but I’ll probably still be stubborn enough to express them, even if they turn out to be wrong. My fault.
Finally, I believe there are fundamental differences in your objection to some Christian school teaching about hell, and an R-rated movie. I followed the link you provided and had to search a while to find the mention of hell. It was one tiny topic amongst an entire curriculum: hardly outstanding. The entire academic curriculum encompasses vastly more than a brief (by all appearances) mention of hell. And even then, what is actually taught in the class? We can guess, but until we know more, it may be unfair to conjecture. An R-rated movie may have, and often does have repeated depictions of violence, profanity, etc.. I believe it is important to not underestimate the power and permanency of VISUAL depictions/images in comparison with oral/verbal descriptions. Movies also add MUSIC soundtracks to drive the images home.
With all that said, I will add: I would be very concerned if my child were to attend a lesson on hell if any number of things were mentioned, including naming those people that (one supposes) are going there (especially if there is a list of sins given), and how long they’re going to be burning and sizzling in perpetual agony. I think we are united in our dislike for such approaches. I know I’ve written about thoughts about heaven and hell elsewhere.
Comment by: Pete S.
28Criticizing? Hmmm.
Criticize: 1.) To judge the merits and faults of, analyze and evaluate. To evaluate is to gauge the value of something in particular. In such a sense, yes, I admit, I was criticizing and critiquing. I don’t think that this is necessarily bad in this case. To admonish and encourage people to do certain things is a responsibility and a right that we have. It must be done with care, and I have carefully thought out my reasons for expressing my opinions regarding allowing underage children to view R-rated movies such as “Jackass” that was mentioned in the original post.
If that be criticism, I am guilty.
I hope I’m not banned. But you can make that call. (Ahh, but if I were banned, there might not be someone else to make one’s blood pressure spike. Oopps. I guess that’s NOT a good thing…)
Comment by: Helen
29Hi Pete, I wouldn’t ban you because I disagree with you. I don’t think that’s a fair way to manage a conversation. I have occasionally e-mailed people if I’ve had concerns that the way they’re expressing themselves is more inflammatory than I want to encourage here. Not to ban them but just to explain what I’m hoping for here.
Sorry if I talked past you instead of with or to you.