Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.
Today's attempted book banning brought to us by Atlanta.
http://www.gwinnettdailypost.com/index.php?s=&url_channel_id=1&url_article_id=20021&url_subchannel_id=&change_well_id=2
Wow. If your kids are so deluded that Harry Potter will cause them to actually attempt witchcraft (as opposed to "playing Harry potter" with friends) than I'd say the books should be the least of your worries.
Sounds like another person who never read Farenheit 451.
Wow. If your kids are so deluded that Harry Potter will cause them to actually attempt witchcraft (as opposed to "playing Harry potter" with friends) than I'd say the books should be the least of your worries.
Sounds like another person who never read Farenheit 451.
Comments
Guess what, in my perfect world you wouldn't be able to say what your child can or can not read, nor would anyone else. If a kid wants to go to the library and read books the parents do not approve of, that's not only permissable, it's awesome. Children are not, and should not be, slaves of their parents. When you make children you are responsible for them, but they should not be beholden to you. If you don't want to buy something for them, nobody can make you. But if they want to exercise their freedoms, including the freedom to use the library and read any book in it, then tough shit.
If you say it's OK for parents to determine what their kids can read, then you have to agree it's also OK for parents to decide their kids shouldn't be allowed to read anything at all. Kids have the right to an education, for which reading is required. Parents should not have a right to take away their children's rights.
You guys have been on this religion bit awhile now so I guess I'll cue in on whats going on amongst the intellectuals out there. Sam Harris in The End of Faith (and recently published Letter to a Christian Nation) along with Daniel Dennett in Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon have issued a scathing review of religion in their publications and now Dawkins has jumped on board. I've just read Harris for now but the gist of what's going on is these guys are attempting a role reversal on the religious community, arguing that it is actually the scientific community who is being marginalized in this country and it is time they leave the closet. I suggest all of this reading** if you guys are really interested in this religion vs. science vs. censorship plus violence shenanigans . . . because gauntly has been thrown, sides are being taken and this current debate really isn't fading until naturalism wins out. Maybe the end of religion is really around the corner . . . only about a century past its announced "death."
**These recent publications are for contemporary audiences so they are a quick read (well, unless you believe in god).
Edit: In retrospect this isn't the right thread to post this comment but Scott provided a killer segway so . . .
If you don't want to talk about it in ideological terms, then let's examine it from a psychological perspective. It's been proven that children go through developmental stages where their psyches are prepared to understand, accept, and practice certain things. A nine-year-old is not prepared for sex; neither are they prepared to read Fight Club, or The Cider House Rules, or Oedipus Rex. There are themes there that mentally, emotionally, and socially they are unable to handle.
As for choosing arbitrary ages at which children are "ready" to handle things, that's just silly. Here in the US, minors of 16 aren't "ready" for alcohol - but people in Europe think differently. It depends on the child's upbringing and cultural environment. I read The Witch of Blackbird Pond when I was in third grade - about eight years old - and I was able to grasp and understand issues like slavery and pressures for social conformity that the book contained. This work wasn't taught to students until the sixth grade. An older student could better discuss it in a classroom setting, I'm sure, but if I had been denied a book based on my age, wouldn't I have lost out? Imagine if my parents, due to certain moral or religious beliefs, had denied me access to that book when I truly wanted to read it. Isn't that an abrogation of my own right to information and education?
Of course we don't want to expose children to things that may harm them. But when a child is old enough to articulate a question about something, they're probably mentally/emotionally capable of handling it with some parental support and direction. To play the devil's advocate, why couldn't a ten-year-old look at Playboy? Why do we consider seeing people naked, or sexuality, to be immoral? A ten-year-old should probably not engage in sex, but if they're interested in a magazine like that, they're old enough for you to talk to them about sexuality, and how to place it in a proper context in their lives. Saying "that isn't good for a child" or "it's immoral for be people to be sexual, I forbid you to investigate sexual reading material," instead of sitting down and talking to them, is doing a child a great disservice.
It's people who underestimate children that cause the postponement of their development and ability to grow up correctly. If a child shows interest in something, don't "poo-poo" or talk down to them. Be there as their guide into adulthood, and know your child's own development. Don't hide things from them. Don't use some "chart of developmental stages" as an excuse for not parenting or discussing certain topics with your child.
Of course, for UglyFred, I could just call you a pedaphile and godwin the whole thread, hahaha. The age of nine was not meant to be specific, just an example. But enough with the philosophical crap, the moral equivalence, the development in a vacuum argument, and the nature/nurture back-and-forth. Read up on Jean Piagett's research on child development:
Preoperational Thought (2 to 6/7 years)
At this age, according to Piaget, children acquire representational skills in the area of mental imagery, and especially language. They are very self-oriented, and have an egocentric view; that is, preoperational children can use these representational skills only to view the world from their own perspective.
Concrete Operations (6/7 to 11/12 years)
As opposed to preoperational children, children in the concrete operations stage are able to take into account another person’s point of view and consider more than one perspective simultaneously, with their thought process being more logical, flexible, and organized than in early childhood. They can also represent transformations as well as static situations. Although they can understand concrete problems, Piaget would argue that they cannot yet contemplate or solve abstract problems, and that they are not yet able to consider all of the logically possible outcomes. Children at this stage would have the ability to pass conservation (numerical), classification, seriation, and spatial reasoning tasks.
Formal Operations (11/12 to adult)
Persons who reach the formal operation stage are capable of thinking logically and abstractly. They can also reason theoretically. Piaget considered this the ultimate stage of development, and stated that although the children would still have to revise their knowledge base, their way of thinking was as powerful as it would get.
If you want to read more about what kids are able to handle mentally, here's some more.
"Children should be able to read whatever they want." Hogwash. Sorry - but I'm not going to let my young child open my book on death-scene investigations. (And trust me, he likes to rummage through everything he can get his hands on!)
"Any government involvement in religion is terrible." Hogwash. I pointed out how goverment sometimes gets involved to protect this right.
I'll try to say this delicately. Speaking in these extremes, to me, suggests that the speaker has probably recently come to this opinion, and has not thought the subject matter through.
It's just an overall frustration that I've experienced here.
Which brings me to frustration number two with these boards... people are so reluctanct to concede a point. Who said that nobody wanted to sit down and talk with them? That's the point - that it's better to sit down and talk with them instead of leaving it up to Playboy.
Jason says it much better than I ever will, but people seem to be forgetting a a fundamental notion: kids are kids. They are not "little adults." A good parent recognizes this and nurtures their child within this context.
I've had several years of experience handling cases involving child abuse and neglect. One important concept for children is the need to feel safe and protected by their parents. You can get away with a lot, as long as your children know that you will keep them safe. To that end, I will not allow my children access to any material that will jeopardize this feeling. That is just good parenting.
The kids that I've seen that have the most trouble are kids that are allowed to do whatever they want - kids whose parents want to be their best friend, and not their parent.
Scott's argument to allow children access to whatever they want over the objection of their parents is insane. I suppose Scott would jail every child born this year because a small percentage of them will grow up to be murderers.
Sure, there will be some parents that abuse their role - and deny their child access to materials that they should have access to. However, there will be countless other parents that are nurturing their children so that they will develop into wonderful people. And you want to deny me the ability to protect and nurture my children because a small minority does a poor job? Absolutely insane.
The bottom line... if you don't feel that children need to be protected and nurtured, then you haven't read any literature on child development in years. Please leave it to the experts.
From being a camp counselor many times I was able to see the correlation between parents and children. Some kids acted like normal people. Sure, they might have been less than 10 years old, but I could talk to them as I talk to you. If they improved their typing skills and vocabulary, they could probably participate in this forum. Those kids tended to have parents who treated them as any other adult human being. Of course other kids acted like kids. Despite some of them being teenagers, they were not adult in mind. These children often had parents who treated them like children, and tried to protect them from the world in which they live. I've literally seen thirteen year-old kids say things like "Did you sex her?" and have eight year-old kids roll their eyes.
Let's add two anecdotes from my childhood. As a kid my parents didn't give me Playboys or anything, but on occasion somebody would find one or steal their dad's copy. All the kids who got to see it acted very immaturely about it. They were exposed to it without context. They acted like excited kids, which is what they were. There was one kid though, whose parents let him read it. When everyone else was acting like children he just shrugged and said "Wtf is wrong with you? It's just a naked girl." He was the most mature and smartest kid in the class. He didn't become a sex-crazed moral degenerate or anything. Sure, the first time he got to see one, he probably acted like the other kids. But because his parents didn't treat him like a child and didn't treat the topic like some evil secret, he did the same.
Another anecdote. Back in elementary school everyone would invite the entire class to their birthday parties. There were a handful of kids in our second grade class whose parents did not allow them to have any toy guns. Once we had a birthday party at a kids house who had a few shitty toy guns. I think one was a pretend bolt-action rifle and the other was a plastic Uzi that made rapid clicking noises. Those kids upon discovering these toys were obsessed with them throughout the entire party. In fact, they were to the point of fighting over who got which one. Everyone else thought they were crazy, and played Nintendo instead.
Hate to use a cartoon as an example here, but look at Lisa Simpson and Ralph Wiggum. They're both the same age, yet one is essentially an adult and the other is barely sentient. There exist real kids that age who are more mature than Lisa and there are kids who are less mature than Ralph. Age has nothing to do with it. It has everything to do with how much the parents shelter the children from the real world. If our society stopped treating children like children, I think many people would be very surprised at how quickly they mature mentally.
Is this my house? Chug-a-chug-a-CHOO-CHOO!
That's my swingset, and that's my sandbox. I'm not allowed to go in the deep end. And this is where I met the leprechaun.
Then, the doctor told me that BOTH my eyes were lazy! And that's why it was the best summer ever.
You know what?
This (I think) falls under the same catagory as senator Stevens's speech about Net Neutrality, for you shouldn't be allowed to ban or fight against something if you really don't know what you're talking about!
PS. Jason? WHAT THE HELL?!?
-edit- Oh, right. Simpsons. Sorry!
Just because something is a societal convention rather than a biological instinct does not make it worthless automatically.
First, just as we have developed biologically, we have developed socially. The study of psychology and biology have shown that starting families at young ages take quite a toll. Without the ability to fully develop (physically and mentally) before having a family can and does shorten lifespan, lead to psychological issues (i.e. once the individual has reached an adult age, they attempt to reclaim the lost childhood making them less able to handle the family that they created) and so on.
Beyond this specific example, society has realized that there are some things that can irreversibly damage the psyche, particularly when exposed to at early ages. One prime example is sex and sexual materials. If a child is exposed to sexually explicit images, situations, and ideas at too young of an age, it can lead to sexual disorders later in life (i.e. hypersexualization, fear of sex and sexualization, a propensity to abuse others sexually, etc.).
Early exposure to explicitly violent situations at too young of an age can also lead to issues with violence and physicality.
You have conceded that parents are responsible for their child's well being and care, would this include protection of their physical well being and not their mental well being? This seems inconsistent- like having a car that you polished every day, but never got an oil change.
What children are exposed to changes them forever and at key points in their development exposure to certain things can and will stunt them/harm them developmentally.
That being said, there is a point where protection goes too far and can stunt the child as well. I usually think that when a child is ready to ask a question, then the parent should answer that question in so far as the child will be able to grasp it without going too far and damaging the kid (i.e. your kid asks where babies come from and you explain the rudiments of sex as opposed to renting a hardcore porn and sitting your kid in front of it). Also, if my 6 year old asked to read American Psycho or watch Trainspotting, I would explain to them that when I think they can handle it, we will rent it, but until then, they need to be content with something else, and I would encourage them to ask me if they wanted to read/see/play something, so I can evaluate it as their interest is piqued.
On a personal note, I think kids can also be self-censoring at times. When I was between 3 and 4 years old, I asked my Mom where babies were born. My mom explained the basics. According to my mother, I thought it over for a moment and then said "Nah... you will tell me when I am older, right?" (Apparently I had problems believing that anyone would want to do anything with the place where people peed... and boys are gross.)
When you got DEFCON, did you try the hardest scenario right out of the box? If you did, you likely failed. It's no different with a child. Some mature faster than others, in large part due to their parents, but it is like building a wall brick by brick - experience upon experience.
I'm just hoping that you don't reverse countless years of child psychology. Your looking at the end product (a mature 10 year old) and assuming that they were always the same creature. That's not how it works - and yes... there is a time during their development that they need to be protected from certain things. (e.g. a toddler should never be exposed to something that will make them question the safety their parents provide for them.) A wall without a solid foundation will never stand. It's this process that creates a child that can handle things that many view to be harmful.
I suppose the reason that so many people are resistant to this idea is because religious zealots can use these concepts to their advantage. That, however, does not mean that you throw the baby out with the bathwater.
As a parent, yes, you have duties to both a child's physical and mental well-being. Making sure your child feels loved and safe/secure is important. However, we cannot build bubbles of a fake, overly-protected, sterlized environment for children. Little by little, they will become exposed to ideas, practices, and beliefs that as a parent you would consider "touchy" or controversial. To both you, Kate, and Kilarney, the point I was trying to make in my post is that as your child is exposed to these things (though books, tv, friends, whatever,) and articulates questions about them, you need to work with them to help them place these things within a proper context in their lives and as a human being. Book banning and other such methods prevent children from dealing with, thinking about, or deciding a position on a subject, and this impedes their growth into adulthood.
"The bottom line... if you don't feel that children need to be protected and nurtured, then you haven't read any literature on child development in years. Please leave it to the experts."
I never said that children don't need to be protected and nutured. They do. I can't think of any culture on this earth that does not find it important to do so - you don't need a child development book to know that kids need that kind of support. But protecting and nuturing your child needs to be balanced with teaching them about reality and the kinds of things that exist in the world. You don't teach them that by throwing Playboy in their face; if that's how you interpreted what I said, then my apologies for a poor articulation of my thoughts. But if your child is showing interest in a certain kind of material, especially a sexual one, then the topic needs to be addressed (in language appropriate to the child's age, like Kate said.) Banning the material from the child, or working to keep further "bad" things out of their lives, is just delaying an inevitable talk and won't work to help the child assimilate the subject matter into his or her worldview/morals/etc in any kind of mature fashion.
You talk about not liking extremes, Kilarney, yet your post implies there's some sort of polar relationship between exposure to sexuality and good parenting. It isn't so black and white.
As for Jason, I have taken some Psych classes and I am familiar with Piaget's work. However, his stages refer more to the development of logic, reasoning, and perception more than at what age it is appropriate for a child to encounter certain ideas, emotional experiences, or behaviors.
"'Should probably not??!!' Please take some time before having kids! There is no 'probably' about it."
I inserted the probably to soften my argument, yes, but also because I am uncertain about it concerning the human race as a whole. In our culture, yes, it is definitely inappropriate. Sex at that age has numerous consequences in our society that simply are too much for the child or any related parties (the partner, the families, etc) to handle. But in other cultures, exposure to sex and sexual activities begins earlier. I remember an article from one of my anthropology lectures that I will try to find for you.
It's easy to think that because it feels natural to raise our children a certain way that it must be the same everywhere, or that all people view childhood, or sex, the same way everywhere. But this isn't so. Before we can paint humanity with a broad brush or label a certain kind of behavior/method of parenting as "universal," we have to look at how other cultures do things. And not just modern, industrialized state-level societies, either. That being said, I don't condone 10-year-olds in this culture, here in the United States, having sex. Do not construe it that way.
As for the "please wait before having children" thing, I think it's rude for you to assume that I'd automatically just want to have babies as soon as possible. I don't wish to have children, ever, and you may "thank your lucky stars" for that if you like. But as an anthropology student I *DO* have an interest in how children are socialized, and other social issues as they relate to children.
(Please note: saying "you are not a parent, so you haven't any experience or right to say anything about this topic," or "you haven't studied child development books, your opinion is worthless," will not be an acceptable argument to make. Let's not go down that route.)
I'm perfectly fine with, and indeed support, the idea of parents having a say in the things to which their children are exposed in their own homes. However, outside of your home, your child is in the real world, and it is your responsibility as a parent to prepare them for that. It's a far better thing to answer a child's queries with an objective and informational answer rather than to brush them aside. That is probably one of the most important things you can learn about child development; inquisitiveness is an opportunity to allow a child to expand its intellect, and sheltering them from answers will at best merely stifle their development and at worst will have them grow up believing dangerous misinformation.
I doubt anyone is saying that child should be exposed to anything they want without any sort of parental guidance, but you have to empahsize the importance of the word "guidance" here. Parents should not necessarily dictate their children's experiences; the best parenting is done by helping your child learn from their experiences, and explain to them the questions they may have.