Jane's Posts

April 16 1998

I think that exposing young children to brutality on the screen helps desensitize them and contributes to the general level of insensitivity to human suffering that characterizes our culture.

I completely agree with this premise. I never let my child watch violent Bruce Willis type movies. No guns, no explosions, no martial arts. In our circle, I am by far the "strictest" about movie content for the kids.

Also, I have not seen Titanic.

That being said, I think that children crave a certain level of violence in their stories. Somehow, they seem to need to confront human suffering. Just within my personal experience, this seems to happen when kids hit 4 or so. They want the wicked witch, the evil queen, the big bad wolf.

jane

April 16 1998

She's watched twister about 150 times. She saw that for the first time in the movie theater when she was 3. She loved it. When we came out she called the twister a monster wind. Lately she's been watching night of the twisters. She likes that even better than twister, even though its monster winds aren't as good, because it has a baby in it.

This is exactly what I meant about kids hitting an age where they really seem to need to confront their fears through stories. They seem to want the same story over and over until they work something out.

jane

April 16 1998

Good to see someone *does* want to be judgmental in the name of good parenting choices--especially someone who elsewhere on this NG advocates chocolate on demand as a reward for sitting still for a haircut...

You're both right. I mean you're both wrong. No, I mean you're both right AND wrong.

Sitting through a haircut is absolute torture for a two year old. And there is NOTHING in it for him. You get a kid you can stand looking at out of the deal. Why SHOULDN'T he get a reward?

Twister is not Lethal Weapon. Life is violent. Kids know it. You can't keep them in your womb forever.

jane