[blparent] sensoring: reading, etc

[jan wright]

Very long rant: be forewarned.
Ok, i am admitting up front:
there are certain subjects that I am definitely conservative on and
there are other subjects that I am quite liberal on.
I just read the posts about sensoring -- (I know I'm behind)
About this subject, i admit that i am conservative.
With my first four: i did not let them play violent video games. i
remember having an argument with other parents when they let their
6-8yo watch "Rush Hour," with Jackie Chan. i remember having a
discussion with teachers when they let their class read "counterfeit
son," which i found objectionable.
Certainly the darker side of life exists. But: at this innocent age,
why highlight it in such a manner. when they don't have to go through
it, why allow them to experience it through a book? ... ... especially
when that book is not a biographical account, but a fictional account
-- not a biographical account of triumph, but something that has been
made up in someone's head...
/ For me: I want my children to 'be children' for as long as they need
to. There is something about exposure that makes children have the
knowledge without the emotional experience to process such events. I
read Ishmael Beah's account of being a boy soldier at the age of 6-10.
(the book  was called "A long way gone," and Ismael Beah is from
Sierra Leonne and now works for Human Watch).  this experience scarred
the boys for life. Why would i want my 10yo to experience such things
through a book?
 I don't think that there is anything wrong with childhood innocence.
Of course, we don't want our children to be too naive about somethings
that could be potential dangers. But, i'd rather tell my children what
they need to know, instead of reading it in a book that might put a
spin on it that I don't agree with. of course, parents get to decide
when this exposure should happen. When your five year old asks: "Where
did I come from," most parents don't say, "let me tell you about sex."
they offer a truthful version, yet, they leave out many of the
details. When we see a homeless person on the street, we shouldn't
ignore the child's question: but we don't have to hear all of their
(possibly) drug adicted  story of criminal elements and such. i am not
sure that it really benefits the child to know all of the gory
details. I'd rather focus on what to do about it.
This is what i think that many books lack.  Their point is to shock
and awe and at  9-12 , I don't want my children being shocked and awed
by the groosome things of the world. i would rather them be shocked by
an astonishing fact. It did not bother me  that, at 12, my daughter
was not boy crazy or trying to have a boyfriend. i knew that it would
come soon enough and did not feel that she needed to be exposed to
adult content to encourage such things.
.... My sons, neither, for that matter.
But, my niece at 10 is already boy crazy and knows quite a bit about sex.
My nephew, at 12, knows how to break into a house, how one might go
about killing someone else and which types of guns are used for the
best results in such matters.
He has read a book about a guy who has commited suicide and why/how he did it.
What purpose does this serve him at 12?
i am not saying that we need to shelter our children from real issues
that plague Americans. But, there is a way to do this without throwing
them in the deep end and saying: "sink like a baby or swim like a
man."
There is nothing wrong with innocence, it doesn't have to mean
complacency. and, does it really damage the child to wait three or
four more years before being exposed to such things???  My children
knew that AIDS (for example) was quite harmful and even at 10-12, they
knew how one might contract the disease. But, I would not have allowed
them to read a very rivitting acount of sex, drugs etc from someone
who had AIDS for them to learn that it was a horrible  disease.  I'm
not personally saying this about any parents on this list. But, I feel
that many parents that i know are on a quest to grow up their child as
quickly as possible.
We seem to want to hurry them along through the childhood stages, so
they can become little adults instead of children. We get angry when
they are developing too slow and we are proud when they develop ahead
of schedule. "my child knows..." "My child can..."
Maybe it is a desire for them to be independent and less dependent on
their parents. Maybe it is a desire for our children to be "the best,"
and we deem that the "best" is getting somewhere or doing something
before their peers.
Whoops, getting off my soapbox!
Bridgit, the books that we use to think were for High Schoolers, are
now for junior High Readers. i don't understand it. "to kill a
Mockingbird," or "native son," which use to be High School reading is
now for 6-7th graders. i don't think that it should be. If i go any
further, i'll start talking about "society's desire for
entertainment," which is becoming more astonishing every day. and,
Yes, i do feel that in some ways, we are becoming desensitized to the
effects of such real damaging experiences.  What use to entertain our
parents at this age, certainly will not suffice for us. We seem to
always think that newer, bolder and more telling is better.
But, i am telling you that I am conservative on this point.
when i read a novel, i don't need to know "blow by blow," or "Thrust
by thrust," (in the bedroom) to get the gist of what is happening.
I am not fond of many authors putting a bit more and more erotica in
their books. i find it demeans the act, itself and the emotions behind
it. I feel like i am watching porn.
 Did I say that i was conservative ???
(smile)
just my own opinion on the subject.
Rant over.