jennefer harper

For example, we don't watch the
Tolkien movies or The Sopranos when he's awake.
<<<<<<

But do they ASK to watch these movies? Would they want
to? I've never
met a
three year old who would spend more than a minute or
two in front of
The
Sopranos
*******************************************************

Yes!! Actually my little son, who's not even 3 quite
yet, will suggest we watch the Sopranos, go grab the
DVD if we happen to have one and if he is not stopped,
will put it in and start it- he knows how to operate
the whole TV/stereo system himself!

Last night he said that he "loved The Rings".

Perhaps he sees how excited we are over these movies
and that's where he gets interested.

Perhaps if we did let him watch it he may lose
interest after 2 or 3 minutes, but my hunch is that
he'd probably watch the whole thing. So, is it
appropriate/responsible for me to give him this
opportunity at the risk of him getting "freaked out"
by an Orc's head being cut off or Tony Soprano having
sex with some chic? This is were I am conflicted. I
guess it would be better to give him the opportunity
and be glad if he turns away after a couple minutes,
but what if he likes it? I don't know how comfortable
I feel about exposing my child to those images and I'm
not sure how much I buy into, "if I don't let him,
he'll only be drawn to it more".

Also, I don't know if he can separate "pretend" from
reality yet.

I'm really torn here, and any insight would be
helpful.

-Jennefer




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

averyschmidt

> Yes!! Actually my little son, who's not even 3 quite
> yet, will suggest we watch the Sopranos, go grab the
> DVD if we happen to have one and if he is not stopped,
> will put it in and start it- he knows how to operate
> the whole TV/stereo system himself!

It seems as though he's imitating what he sees his parents
doing/watching rather than actually interested in the subject matter.
With a toddler in the house I wouldn't watch the Sopranos or
anything like it unless he was sleeping. I even try to put off
reading aloud to my older boys (9 and 11) anything that I think is
too violent or otherwise racy for my 5yo to overhear.
We save certain movies (The Patriot comes to mind) for the
occasional night when the youngest falls asleep earlier than usual.

> Perhaps if we did let him watch it he may lose
> interest after 2 or 3 minutes, but my hunch is that
> he'd probably watch the whole thing. So, is it
> appropriate/responsible for me to give him this
> opportunity at the risk of him getting "freaked out"
> by an Orc's head being cut off or Tony Soprano having
> sex with some chic? This is were I am conflicted.

From what I remember about having two year olds is that out of sight
is pretty much out of mind and that it's very easy to find something
else they'd prefer to watch or do, so mabye just put the DVDs away.
I also think it would be a good idea to stop talking about it
excitedly in front of him.
An older child actually interested in the subject matter is an
entirely different story, but a 2yo? I think there are other
solutions.

Patti

Elizabeth Roberts

The other day Paul and I finally had a chance to sit
and watch ROTK. Megan was still awake, so she watched
much of it with us. During the scene with the spider
that gets ahold of Frodo, Megan pipes up "Shoo! Shoo!
Go Way BUG! Shoo! SHOO! Bad BUGGY go way! SHOO!" She
has just turned 3, and has not seemed to be bothered
in the least with it. She has asked us to watch
"Spider movie" again. She's seen it three times now,
the entire movie, and seems to enjoy it.

Elizabeth

--- TreeGoddess <treegoddess@...> wrote:

>
> On Aug 16, 2004, at 12:33 PM, jennefer harper wrote:
>
> > [Last night he said that he "loved The Rings".]
>
> My kids have seen all three movies in this trilogy.
> The first one we
> watched at home (without the kids) but they kept
> coming in and wanting
> to watch it and then would wonder off then come
> back. When it was over
> they asked to watch it from the beginning because
> they didn't see it
> all. They were 4 and 2 at the time. I sat with
> them and we watched it
> again. They asked questions, but they didn't act
> scared. They have
> since seen the other 2 at the theater with us.
> Besides the LOTR
> trilogy they like the Harry Potter films, the Matrix
> trilogy, Star Wars
> saga, etc. And they still enjoy Ferngully, Blues
> Clues and Sesame
> Street too.
>
> > [Perhaps he sees how excited we are over these
> movies and that's where
> > he gets interested.]
>
> Or maybe he thinks they look like great, adventurous
> movies and he'd
> like to check them out too.
>
> > [Perhaps if we did let him watch it he may lose
> > interest after 2 or 3 minutes, but my hunch is
> that
> > he'd probably watch the whole thing.]
>
> There's only one way to find out. LOL Pop on a
> LOTR movie for
> yourself and see if he joins you. If he has
> questions or seems like
> it's disturbing him you'll already be right there
> for him.
>
> > [Also, I don't know if he can separate "pretend"
> from reality yet.]
>
> Show him the "extras" on the DVDs where they show
> how they do make-up
> and special effects. My 3yo DD understands that
> movies are "movies"
> and that the actors didn't *really* cut off a real
> person's head. When
> we watch movies they like me to point out actors
> from other films that
> they'd recognize -- even if it's voice talent.
> Like, "Hey, kids! See
> that guy right there with the dark, curly hair? His
> name is Tom Hanks
> and he does the voice for Woody on 'Toy Story'!"
> They love to make the
> connections and see that these actors get paid to
> pretend and tell us a
> story. Maybe your son would enjoy that too? Just
> throwing stuff out
> there. :)
> -Tracy-
>
>





__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Kelly Muzyczka

>I also think it would be a good idea to stop talking about it
>excitedly in front of him.
>An older child actually interested in the subject matter is an
>entirely different story, but a 2yo? I think there are other
>solutions.
>
>Patti


I think you are underestimating kids.

My three year old only turned 3 in June and has been watching these movies
for a while. He likes to play Orcs and Rangers with his 8 year old brother.

He also likes Stargate SG1.

Kelly

pam sorooshian

On Aug 16, 2004, at 9:33 AM, jennefer harper wrote:

> I'm really torn here, and any insight would be
> helpful.

I wouldn't have watched "the Sopranos" in front of my children - so
they wouldn't even know about it at 3 years old. That sounds like you
made a big deal out of it and he thinks it is going to be good for him,
too. WHY on earth would a 3 yo watch it after the first couple of
minutes? That doesn't even make sense - there is nothing in it that
would be of interest to a 3 year old.

LOR is pretty gory and scary - but if a kid wanted to watch it I'd put
it on and sit close and be sensitive to turning it off if they were too
scared.

-pam
National Home Education Network
<www.NHEN.org>
Serving the entire homeschooling community since 1999
through information, networking and public relations.

averyschmidt

> I think you are underestimating kids.

Now that's one thing I've never been accused of. :-)

I've seen only a few scenes from the Sopranos, but it was enough for
me to know that I'd not introduce it to, or watch it in front of, my
2yo.
Have you ever seen the Sopranos?

> My three year old only turned 3 in June and has been watching
these movies
> for a while. He likes to play Orcs and Rangers with his 8 year
old brother.

I'm not sure what movies you're talking about.


Patti

Kelly Muzyczka

At 10:35 PM 8/16/2004, you wrote:

> > I think you are underestimating kids.
>
>Now that's one thing I've never been accused of. :-)
>
>I've seen only a few scenes from the Sopranos, but it was enough for
>me to know that I'd not introduce it to, or watch it in front of, my
>2yo.
>Have you ever seen the Sopranos?

The point isn't that your child, or my child, is ready for a program. The
point is not assuming that a NUMBER (their age) is the determiner for
readiness.

I've never watched the Sopranos, don't have HBO. Have watched any number
of shoot 'em up movies, with language issues, etc. in front of or WITH my
little ones. I am with them, if they are bothered, we find something
else. I've even offered to watch something else only to have the 3 year
old say no.

I also think it's unfair to judge a program by a few scenes. Information
taken out of context can be much more upsetting. Many fairy tales are WAY
more horrific than your average cop movie, but they have the moral at the
end--the resolution, which can make all the difference. Order is restored,
the world is safe again.

> > My three year old only turned 3 in June and has been watching
>these movies
> > for a while. He likes to play Orcs and Rangers with his 8 year
>old brother.
>
>I'm not sure what movies you're talking about.


I was talking about the Lord of the Rings--Tolkein. He loves them all. We
have 1 and 3 on DVD and he has been known, on quiet days, to watch them
back to back. Strider/Aragorn is a Ranger.

Kelly

averyschmidt

> The point isn't that your child, or my child, is ready for a
program. The
> point is not assuming that a NUMBER (their age) is the determiner
for
> readiness.

Of course it's not about a number. There are adults (myself
included) who will never be "ready." That's probably not even the
best word to use since it implies that "readiness" will certainly
come at some point in the future, and it won't necessarily.

I didn't pick the age 2 arbitrarily. There is gray area, and then
there is common sense.
I can't imagine a 2yo being interested in the Sopranos any more than
I can imagine a 2yo requesting Debbie Does Dallas from the video
store or a pack of cigarettes from 7-11.

My point to the original poster was that it isn't likely that the
2yo had a genuine interest in the show, and it's very likely that
the 2yo was imitating the exitement over the program modelled by the
adults around him. Since she was looking for a solution I gave what
I thought was a perfectly sensible one. And I gave it as a person
who's raised several 2yos, has hundreds of direct tv channels, and
believes wholeheartedly in tv freedom.

> I've never watched the Sopranos, don't have HBO. Have watched any
number
> of shoot 'em up movies, with language issues, etc. in front of or
WITH my
> little ones.

I have too. The Sopranos, IMO, is above and beyond the average
shoot 'em up movie as far as being relevant to a toddler, and also
goes well beyond mere language issues.

> I also think it's unfair to judge a program by a few scenes.
Information
> taken out of context can be much more upsetting.

I think it's unfair to judge my judgement that a program isn't
likely to be of interest to toddlers without having seen the program
yourself.
I wonder if you watched a couple of episodes whether you'd introduce
them to *your* young child- watch them when he's around, place them
within his access, talk them up to him, etc. My guess is not. (How
old are your children by the way?)

> I also think it's unfair to judge a program by a few scenes.
Information
> taken out of context can be much more upsetting.

Who is it unfair to?
Why would I make myself continue to watch something that's
disturbing to me just so that I can judge it in its entirety?
When I rented The Mummy for my interested-in-mummies (and not very
easily disturbed by fantasy) child, and after a few minutes he knew
intuitively that it would scare him too much, I thought him wise,
not unfair.

I do the same thing with books. I've started many novels only to
decide a short way into them that they're not (to me) worth
finishing. Should I force myself to read the entire book so that I
can judge it fairly as a whole? Mabye that would be really nice of
me, but I have better things to do with my time.

> I was talking about the Lord of the Rings--Tolkein. He loves them
all. We
> have 1 and 3 on DVD and he has been known, on quiet days, to watch
them
> back to back. Strider/Aragorn is a Ranger.

All three of my children love the Lord of the Rings movies, although
my youngest will wisely leave the room during scenes he finds
disturbing.

I'm really curious now... does anyone who *is* familiar with the
Sopranos think it's appropriate to strew in front of a 2yo, and,
having done that, that the 2yo would have a genuine desire to keep
watching it?

Patti

Dawn Adams

>Perhaps if we did let him watch it he may lose
>interest after 2 or 3 minutes, but my hunch is that
>he'd probably watch the whole thing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

My daughter watched LOTR at four and loved it. Her favourite part was and is the mines of Moria which I would have thought was waaaay to intense.

> So, is it
>appropriate/responsible for me to give him this
>opportunity at the risk of him getting "freaked out"
>by an Orc's head being cut off or Tony Soprano having
>sex with some chic?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

I really doubt the sex would mean a thing to him. As for the orc heads, I would warn my daughter that something big was coming up and move in closer to for emergency hugs. Turns out she really loves that stuff anyway so we spend as much time going over the special features on effects on a DVD as we do watching a movie. I should have known, I loved monsters and knoing how they made them when I was little too.

>This is were I am conflicted. I
>guess it would be better to give him the opportunity
>and be glad if he turns away after a couple minutes,
>but what if he likes it?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

My daughter loves it. She's not an evil, violent head hunter now. She's interested in martial arts and making special effects.

> I don't know how comfortable
>I feel about exposing my child to those images and I'm
>not sure how much I buy into, "if I don't let him,
>he'll only be drawn to it more".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You haven't offered up any reasons why your son seeing those movies would be bad other then you being uncomfortable which I think has nothing to do with why he shouldn't watch them and that he might freak out. I was terrified of the Brady Bunch for years because of one episode where one of the kids disapeared from inside a magic box. Many kids have freaked out at the flying monkey scenes in, "the Wizard of Oz'. "Time Bandits', another kid flick, could turn my stomach but I still loved watching action and horror movies and had nary a nightmare.
Why would those movies be something to keep from him?

Also, I don't know if he can separate "pretend" from
reality yet.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

That's why there are DVD's with special features. What better way to realize the orc heads are fake then to watch them make them? My daughter actually watched the spec. effects features first, now that I think about it. hat may have been a big help.

Dawn (in NS)





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dawn Adams

>The other day Paul and I finally had a chance to sit
>and watch ROTK. Megan was still awake, so she watched
>much of it with us. During the scene with the spider
>that gets ahold of Frodo, Megan pipes up "Shoo! Shoo!
>Go Way BUG! Shoo! SHOO! Bad BUGGY go way! SHOO!" She
>has just turned 3, and has not seemed to be bothered
>in the least with it. She has asked us to watch
>"Spider movie" again. She's seen it three times now,
>the entire movie, and seems to enjoy it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
My daughter LOVED that part. :) She thinks spiders are wonderful so a giant one was right up her alley. Frankly, I don't see her being scared by monsters and violent scenes. It's going to be the ones with spooky atmospheres and ideas that don't leave your head after the movie ends that will get to her I bet.

Dawn (in NS)




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Julie

I'm really curious now... does anyone who *is* familiar with the Sopranos
think it's appropriate to strew in front of a 2yo, and, having done that,
that the 2yo would have a genuine desire to keep watching it?

Patti

No and no!!

Julie

Danielle Conger

When I rented The Mummy for my interested-in-mummies (and not very
easily disturbed by fantasy) child, and after a few minutes he knew
intuitively that it would scare him too much, I thought him wise,
not unfair.
=======

<>For what it's worth, Warner Brothers had a whole cartoon series called
The Mummy, which my kids love. I don't think it's on anymore, but
there's a feature length movie called Secrets of the Lost Scrolls, which
is how we discovered it. Very cool without the horror scary kind of
stuff. Imhotep is still the bad guy though, which for the life of me, I
can't figure out why they villified him. He was a very powerful scribe,
architect and doctor--I didn't find anything negative about him.

--Danielle

http://www.danielleconger.com/Homeschool/Welcomehome.html

Marjorie Kirk

LOR is pretty gory and scary - but if a kid wanted to watch it I'd put it on
and sit close and be sensitive to turning it off if they were too scared.

-pam
National Home Education Network



************************************************************
When Dh and I saw the first LOTR movie I was scared. My kids all wanted to
see it, especially the older two, and I told them not until they were much
older. After reading about other people's experiences in letting their kids
self-regulate, I decided to let them see it, but at home on DVD so we could
stop or pause it if it was too much for them. I was hoping that my
six-year-old wouldn't be interested and we could go off and play, but she
wanted to see what the big deal was. When we got to the first scary part
(at least to me) when the Hobbits were all hiding off the road under the
tree roots and the black horse things were looking for them (sorry I don't
remember what they're called), I paused the movie and asked if everyone was
O.K.. They were. I asked my daughter if this was too scary for her. She
looked at me in disbelief, and said, in a very patronizing tone, as if I
were simple: "Mom, IT'S PRETEND." And it is. So we continued.
We all saw the other two at the Theaters. When Return of the King came out
we went to the late show on opening night in a college area. All of the
college kids chatting with us as we waited in line were asking how come they
were out so late on a school night, etc. I think they got a little extra
education that night. ;-)



I think this works much better than my nieces who couldn't wait to see their
first Pg movie, then their first Pg-13 movie. Now they all can't wait to
see their first rated R movie. They've made it such a big deal!


Marjorie

[email protected]

In a message dated 8/16/2004 9:16:57 PM Central Standard Time,
pamsoroosh@... writes:

LOR is pretty gory and scary - but if a kid wanted to watch it I'd put
it on and sit close and be sensitive to turning it off if they were too
scared.



~~~
Will and I watched it for the first time on cable just the other day. We
both had to avert our eyes at lots of the war scenes. He didn't find the Orcs
as scary as he would have when he was just a little younger when it first
came out. I saw it at the theater, and all lots of our kid friend were seeing
it then, but he and I both knew it was too much. I innocently put in Kill
Bill Vol. 1 thinking it would be just standard gory, but it was horrible, messy,
comic book gory, and I wish I hadn't watched it. Will was not home and I'm
grateful for that, but I think he would have gotten up and left the room.

The other day I was flipping through the channels, looking for something to
put on while I cleaned the room. In a sad bit of coincidence, the channel
stopped on a B-movie of a woman as her eyes exploded out of her head. In my
haste to change the channel I lost control of the remote and the image was
seared into my brain. The last words I heard before I got the channel changed
were an announcer saying something about the movie...so it wasn't the actual
movie being shown, but a show about B movies or something.

I told Will about it later. He said he was grossed out just thinking about
it, and that he was glad it wasn't him. He laughed at the visual image of me
not being able to change the channel quickly enough. They're showing
commercials for the Excorist sequel/prequel? on Nick At Night! We're both creeped
out when it comes on. Who wants to be subjected to that during the Cosby
Show?

I guess I'm being longwinded to say that as a 10 yo he still knows his
limits. I'm 42 and mine haven't changed much since Abbot and Costello Meet
Dracula and Frankenstein.

Karen


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Kelly Muzyczka

>I have too. The Sopranos, IMO, is above and beyond the average
>shoot 'em up movie as far as being relevant to a toddler, and also
>goes well beyond mere language issues.

Toddlers are remarkably sensitive to relationships and a sense of
justice. I can imagine a small child getting caught up in the "soap opera"
part.

The point is--we are not in our child's mind. I'm not so much arguing the
relative merit of the Sopranos, because, as we've discussed, I haven't seen
it. I'm wondering why the dismissal of "a 2 year old wouldn't be
interested" and not "Talk to your child about the program, see if you can
figure out what it is that interests him, if it's just your interest that
will become clear, if it is something else, perhaps you can redirect him to
something with the same appeal and no scary bits."

That's all. That's my point. To not dismiss the child's interest as just
being a reflection of the parent's interest but to consider going deeper.

> > I also think it's unfair to judge a program by a few scenes.
>Information
> > taken out of context can be much more upsetting.
>
>I think it's unfair to judge my judgement that a program isn't
>likely to be of interest to toddlers without having seen the program
>yourself.

I haven't. I have no concrete opinion on the show. Haven't seen it. I
CAN imagine reasons, other than parent's interest, why a child would be
interested in mature subjects. Not in a scary, probably abused,
inappropriate way, but in a genuine interest in, for example, personal
interaction. Kids pick up on that stuff really well.

>I wonder if you watched a couple of episodes whether you'd introduce
>them to *your* young child- watch them when he's around, place them
>within his access, talk them up to him, etc. My guess is not. (How
>old are your children by the way?)

What difference does it make what age my kids are? (I've already said in
this thread, btw.) I HAVE introduced some very adult shows to my kids. I
watch all kinds of things. My eldest didn't like X-files at about the age
we are talking about and so I missed a couple seasons in first run. Now I
get to show them to him and he thinks they are cool. He made it VERY clear
(and he wasn't very verbal at 2) that he didn't like it. Ok, fair enough.

Right now I ask my husband not to watch the Dave Chappelle show around the
kids. First off, it's personal--I hate it and I'm uncomfortable so
I don't get family time if it's on. Second, I do think it's a bit icky to
have the kids listen to (lots of racial stereotypes, sex jokes,
etc.) Third, the kids clearly don't get it and also have that sense of it
not being family time. If they asked for it to be put back on, I'd have to
look at why, try to figure it out. Parental interest is ONE reason. But I
wouldn't jump to the assumption that was the only reason. (Though, God's,
I'd hope so, I hate it!!! -smile-)

> > I also think it's unfair to judge a program by a few scenes.
>Information
> > taken out of context can be much more upsetting.
>
>Who is it unfair to?

IN THIS SETTING, the child. You are assuming his/her interest is only
because of the parent's interest. With less than the whole show to go
on. I'm making no assumptions about the reasons, because I have no info
directly on the show. I am speculation another reason.

>Why would I make myself continue to watch something that's
>disturbing to me just so that I can judge it in its entirety?

If you are making the decision just for you, no reason. If you are a
parent assessing a program in order to guide your child, perhaps your child.

But you might miss something interesting to you by not being willing to
work outside your comfort level.

>I'm really curious now... does anyone who *is* familiar with the
>Sopranos think it's appropriate to strew in front of a 2yo, and,
>having done that, that the 2yo would have a genuine desire to keep
>watching it?
>
>Patti

And I'm curious why it isn't clear that the point isn't the Sopranos. It's
any program that we are making a judgement about. Our judgment may be
correct. I wouldn't doubt that yours WAS in that setting. I still think
that assuming the reason a child would be interested in a more mature
program is only the parents interest is underestimating a child. And if
you do it when they are two, you might do it when they are 10.

It's about the idea, not the Sopranos and not that two year old.

Kelly

[email protected]

In a message dated 8/17/2004 7:22:54 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
tuckervill2@... writes:
He said he was grossed out just thinking about
it, and that he was glad it wasn't him. He laughed at the visual image of
me
not being able to change the channel quickly enough.
-----------

I laughed, only because just on the weekend Holly wanted to hear Bill Cosby's
"Chicken Heart," which various adults in her life had made reference to over
the years. He hadn't even thought to turn off the radio.

And if you couldn't turn the TV off fast enough, you could have looked away,
or turned your back.

Holly and Marty both like the Believe it or Not show, and they both like Fear
Factor sometimes, but they warn me if I'm coming through the room and there's
something gross on.

Sandra


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[email protected]

In a message dated 8/17/2004 10:37:39 AM Mountain Daylight Time,
mina@... writes:
>I wonder if you watched a couple of episodes whether you'd introduce
>them to *your* young child- watch them when he's around, place them
>within his access, talk them up to him, etc. My guess is not.
----------------------

I don't think people are recommending "introducing" violence to young
children.

These kinds of examples and challenges are similar to people saying, "Well
then, I guess you don't care if your children eat nothing but sugar all day" in
response to someone talking about letting them have cheese when it's not
mealtime, and not having to clean their whole plates.

Giving kids freedom and choice isn't the same as not caring.
Giving kids freedom and choice isn't the same as not being there.
Giving kids freedom and choice isn't the same as giving them everything in
the whole world all at once.

It's about learning to say yes more often, about not limiting them to half an
hour by the clock, or "no more Barney, you watched Barney yesterday" or the
thousands of nitpicky little things parents have admitted and been reported to
have done, things some of us had done and said to us by our parents.
Arbitrary control-for-control's sake.

Sandra


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[email protected]

In a message dated 8/17/2004 1:52:05 PM Central Standard Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:

And if you couldn't turn the TV off fast enough, you could have looked away,
or turned your back.



~~~

Oh, believe me, I DID! I, said, UGH!, looked down at the remote as my thumb
lost it's way on the channel button and when I finally found the button
again, I started to look up to see if it was changing and closed my eyes instead.
I was only standing 3 feet from the television. It's seared into my brain.
Ahhh.

I used to be able to handle Fear Factor, but they kept having to ramp it up
to make it more and more gross. I don't think I want to know the person who
comes up with that stuff.

Karen


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

christy_imnotred

--- In [email protected], "Julie" <mjsolich@i...>
wrote:
> I'm really curious now... does anyone who *is* familiar with the
Sopranos
> think it's appropriate to strew in front of a 2yo, and, having
done that,
> that the 2yo would have a genuine desire to keep watching it?
>
> Patti
>

My husband and I watch 24 when it is on. My son who is 4 is still
up. We started watching the show when he was 2, he was still up then
too. He has no interest in the show. He has maybe glanced at the
screen 3 or 4 times in 2 years. While the show has some disturbing
violence, it is mostly adults talking, very boring for a young
child. He usually plays a computer game when it is on since the
computer is free during that time. So, I guess we strewed it in
front of him, but no he isn't interested.

Christy O

averyschmidt

> Toddlers are remarkably sensitive to relationships and a sense of
> justice. I can imagine a small child getting caught up in
the "soap opera"
> part.

I'm very familiar with toddlers, and I don't know a single one who
could follow the story line of the Sopranos, or relate to it, or
have any context to put it in. I imagine if such a show caught a
2yo's eye it would be for the frequent blood spattering spectacles
(sort of like turning our heads at a traffic accident) and not
because of the nuanced plots.
(Notice I've used the words "I imagine" and "I don't know." I'm
speaking of my own experience only).

> I'm wondering why the dismissal of "a 2 year old wouldn't be
> interested" and not "Talk to your child about the program, see if
you can
> figure out what it is that interests him, if it's just your
interest that
> will become clear, if it is something else, perhaps you can
redirect him to
> something with the same appeal and no scary bits."

I don't think I dismissed at all. I think I offered an opinion and
advice to someone who seemed stressed and conflicted.
If you thought I should have said something else, then why didn't
you just say it yourself?

> What difference does it make what age my kids are? (I've already
said in
> this thread, btw.)

I didn't catch their ages earlier in the thread. Usually when I'm
discussing parenting ideas and experiences with someone I like to
know how old their children are as it gives me a better idea of
where they're coming from. No hidden agenda, just curiosity.
Mine are 11, 9, and 5.

> You are assuming his/her interest is only
> because of the parent's interest.

One way to find out would be to put the DVDs away at a time when the
child was occupied with something else, stop talking about them
around him, and see if he continues to ask for them.

> But you might miss something interesting to you by not being
willing to
> work outside your comfort level.

Are you missing something interesting to you by asking you husband
not to put on the show with the racist remarks you mentioned?
There are enough alternatives out there for me that I don't need to
desensitive myself to something I find repulsive just in case I
might find a redeeming quality somewhere.

> I still think
> that assuming the reason a child would be interested in a more
mature
> program is only the parents interest is underestimating a child.

I disagree.
2yo's often imitate their parents. My toddlers would open a book I
was reading and pretend to read it, turning the pages, etc.
My oldest used to, at age 2, pretend to nurse a doll when I nursed
his brother. Is "assuming" that they were imitating me
underestimating them in some way? I don't think so.

> And if
> you do it when they are two, you might do it when they are 10.

I have a child past ten.
He no longer pretends to nurse dolls or imitates the adults around
him like he did at 2. There wouldn't *be* a reason for me to
imagine that when he wants to watch something he's just imitating me.

I think you're taking the idea of arbitrary ages being silly (which
I agree with) and taking it to an illogical extreme.

Patti

Kelly Muzyczka

>I don't think I dismissed at all. I think I offered an opinion and
>advice to someone who seemed stressed and conflicted.
>If you thought I should have said something else, then why didn't
>you just say it yourself?

I did and I have, a number of times in this thread. Since what I said was
in response to your advice, I quoted you and responded to your
post. That's reasonable on a discussion list.

> > You are assuming his/her interest is only
> > because of the parent's interest.
>
>One way to find out would be to put the DVDs away at a time when the
>child was occupied with something else, stop talking about them
>around him, and see if he continues to ask for them.

Yup, that's a way to test it. But you didn't suggest that to originally,
did you? You just stated that a 2 year old wouldn't be interested.

> > But you might miss something interesting to you by not being
>willing to
> > work outside your comfort level.
>
>Are you missing something interesting to you by asking you husband
>not to put on the show with the racist remarks you mentioned?

I might be. And I'm willing to risk that. My choice. But it's made with
the knowledge that I MIGHT miss something. I respect my husband. That
means I assume he is getting something from watching that program. I don't
know what, 'cause I can't stand it. Don't like South Park much either. I
think I've watched one I even found remotely funny. Lots of people I
respect like it. Love it. Yuck. Maybe if I gave it more time, watched it
with him, talked about it, I would get something from it. Not worth it to me.

But assuming that because I don't like it that it can't have value to him,
on his own, would be wrong. Assuming that about a child--not matter their
age, no matter the content--is wrong, too. It's just bad practice.

>There are enough alternatives out there for me that I don't need to
>desensitive myself to something I find repulsive just in case I
>might find a redeeming quality somewhere.

Nor do I. My point wasn't that you should. My point was that by looking
at a portion of what was going on--violent content, you are not looking at
the other parts of the program. Now, you are fully in your rights to do
that. But when you declare that another person won't see anything more
than that, that's when I had a problem with it. I have a problem with it
in PRINCIPLE. Not in application to your children or to the original
poster's children. But because it sets up a situation where you could be
dismissing a valid interest because you are assuming it does not exist.

> > I still think
> > that assuming the reason a child would be interested in a more
>mature
> > program is only the parents interest is underestimating a child.
>
>I disagree.
>2yo's often imitate their parents. My toddlers would open a book I
>was reading and pretend to read it, turning the pages, etc.
>My oldest used to, at age 2, pretend to nurse a doll when I nursed
>his brother. Is "assuming" that they were imitating me
>underestimating them in some way? I don't think so.

So because children imitate their parents at that age it is the only reason
that they are interested in things at that age? This is what I hear you
saying.

> > And if
> > you do it when they are two, you might do it when they are 10.
>
>I have a child past ten.
>He no longer pretends to nurse dolls or imitates the adults around
>him like he did at 2. There wouldn't *be* a reason for me to
>imagine that when he wants to watch something he's just imitating me.

So at 10 your children no longer look to you for things to emulate? I
doubt that. I still look to my parents and even my grandparents for advice
and guidance on what is interesting, what is fun, what is safe, etc. I'm 37.

I NEVER said that children don't emulate their parents. I never said the
original poster's child wasn't emulating his parents. I certainly think
that we should watch what we do around our kids because they DO emulate
us. BUT.....I do not assume that is the only reason my kids do something.

>I think you're taking the idea of arbitrary ages being silly (which
>I agree with) and taking it to an illogical extreme.
>
>Patti

And I think you aren't seeing past the specific example to see the
principle behind it.

Kelly

averyschmidt

> > You are assuming his/her interest is only
> > because of the parent's interest.

Okay, I just went back and read the original post, and realize why
the idea of the child just wanting to imitate the parent seemed
obvious to me.
She said something about "if" she let him watch it he might not get
further than 2 or 3 minutes into it.
So it seemed from the post that the child in question hadn't
actually seen the program before.

Patti

[email protected]

<< > Toddlers are remarkably sensitive to relationships and a sense of

> justice. I can imagine a small child getting caught up in

the "soap opera"

> part. >>

My kids couldn't even follow the plot of Dumbo. They just really liked the
songs and the music, and the colorful funniest parts.

Toddlers don't give a rat's patoot about adults talking in shows.

My kids used to watch Rocky Horror Picture Show, but by "watch" I mean be in
and out of the room when it was on, or playing with Ninja Turtles, or
whatever. I had told them the premise of the story (aliens whose main knowledge of
earth culture was what they had seen of old B&W monster movies broadcast on TV
before the mid-1960s).

Holly figured out this year (she's 12) that Frankenfurter was a man dressed
as a woman (kind of). It never mattered. She was too young to pay attention
to what wasn't interesting to her. (And now she's too mature to pay attention
to what's not interesting. LOL)

Meanwhile, one of her friends was forbidden to see ANY of that video until
she was 12. "Wait 'til you're 12."

And so for all those years, Holly was humming some of the tunes, knowing who
Susan Sarandon and Tim Curry were, paying more attention to Meatloaf when
music or movies of his came around, and she and Marty once did a very cool
comparison of Rocky Horror and some other movie involving aliens.

I didn't make them watch it, nor even encourage it. I don't know whether
Kirby or Marty has even watched it all the way through in one pass. Holly has,
and has seen the stage play, because she's like that about musicals.

Her friend who waited to be twelve finally watched it and was doing nothing
but looking for the nasty bits she had been sheltered from.

Holly never saw it as "nasty" or tantalizing or sexy. Her friend sees it as
nothing BUT that, and she waited for years, so it BETTER have some racy stuff.


The movie has had a much bigger affect on the one who was forbidden to see it
than on the one who could watch it or not, over the years. Not a big deal,
for Holly. BIGdeal deal for other kid.

Sandra

averyschmidt

> Yup, that's a way to test it. But you didn't suggest that to
originally,
> did you? You just stated that a 2 year old wouldn't be interested.

No I didn't just state any such thing.
This is exactly what I said:

"It seems as though he's imitating what he sees his parents
doing/watching rather than actually interested in the subject
matter."

And I didn't say it as a universal statement of 2yos, i.e. "2yos
have no interests of their own they just do whatever their parents
do." I said it in response to a very specific description combined
with my knowledge of a 2yos *tendency* to imitate adults.

> But when you declare that another person won't see anything more
> than that, that's when I had a problem with it. I have a problem
with it
> in PRINCIPLE.

Please show me exactly where I "declared" that.



> So because children imitate their parents at that age it is the
only reason
> that they are interested in things at that age? This is what I
hear you
> saying.

You're definitely hearing me wrong, and I'm sorry about that.
Where did I say that it's the only reason they're interested in
things? In the context, with the information that I had to go on,
it seemed (and that's the word I used... SEEMS) that imitation was
more likely than genuine interest.

> So at 10 your children no longer look to you for things to
emulate? I
> doubt that. I still look to my parents and even my grandparents
for advice
> and guidance on what is interesting, what is fun, what is safe,
etc. I'm 37.

I'm not sure how or why you're jumping to these drastic conclusions.
Emulating is different from imitating.

Patti

Kelly Muzyczka

>So it seemed from the post that the child in question hadn't
>actually seen the program before.
>
>Patti

Yeah, that would make a difference.

In THAT case, I'd feel no obligation to present a show to my kids if I
thought they wouldn't be interested. I really have been talking about a
situation where a child has expressed interest.

Kelly

[email protected]

In a message dated 8/17/2004 7:40:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
SandraDodd@... writes:

Her friend who waited to be twelve finally watched it and was doing nothing
but looking for the nasty bits she had been sheltered from.

Holly never saw it as "nasty" or tantalizing or sexy. Her friend sees it as

nothing BUT that, and she waited for years, so it BETTER have some racy
stuff. <<<<

My favorite Hooly story is when Holly's singing Toucha-toucha-toucha-touch
Me in the shopping cart when she was what? Two? <G> Gives me the giggles every
time I think of it! <G>

~Kelly


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Kelly Muzyczka

At 07:43 PM 8/17/2004, you wrote:
> > Yup, that's a way to test it. But you didn't suggest that to
>originally,
> > did you? You just stated that a 2 year old wouldn't be interested.
>
>No I didn't just state any such thing.
>This is exactly what I said:
>
>"It seems as though he's imitating what he sees his parents
>doing/watching rather than actually interested in the subject
>matter."

And I said that there might be more to it and it is problamatic to assume
that's the only reason, no matter the child's age.

>And I didn't say it as a universal statement of 2yos, i.e. "2yos
>have no interests of their own they just do whatever their parents
>do." I said it in response to a very specific description combined
>with my knowledge of a 2yos *tendency* to imitate adults.
>
> > But when you declare that another person won't see anything more
> > than that, that's when I had a problem with it. I have a problem
>with it
> > in PRINCIPLE.
>
>Please show me exactly where I "declared" that.

You put a call out for people to tell you if they could imagine ANY two
year old being interested in a program you said they wouldn't be. You were
unwilling/unable to see a situation where they might be. It could be the
Sopranos, it could be anything.

And Sandra's kid's not knowing the plot to Dumbo aside, my two year olds
(when they were) were very good at telling me who was doing what to whom.


> > So because children imitate their parents at that age it is the
>only reason
> > that they are interested in things at that age? This is what I
>hear you
> > saying.
>
>You're definitely hearing me wrong, and I'm sorry about that.
>Where did I say that it's the only reason they're interested in
>things? In the context, with the information that I had to go on,
>it seemed (and that's the word I used... SEEMS) that imitation was
>more likely than genuine interest.

That's what you said originally. But that has not been what you've been
arguing.

> > So at 10 your children no longer look to you for things to
>emulate? I
> > doubt that. I still look to my parents and even my grandparents
>for advice
> > and guidance on what is interesting, what is fun, what is safe,
>etc. I'm 37.
>
>I'm not sure how or why you're jumping to these drastic conclusions.

I quoted you: <<I have a child past ten.
He no longer pretends to nurse dolls or imitates the adults around
him like he did at 2. There wouldn't *be* a reason for me to
imagine that when he wants to watch something he's just imitating me.>>

I can think of any number of reasons for a child to imitate his or her
parents, no matter what the age. You said outright you wouldn't have any
reason to consider that as an option for your over 10 kid.

>Emulating is different from imitating.
>
>Patti

Ok, I looked it up. To imitate something is to mimic the actions of. To
emulate something is to "strive to equal or match especially by
imitating." So imitating is the behavior, emulation is the goal. So if
our 2 year olds, or 10 year olds are imitating us, it is in hopes of
emulating us.

It's all part of the same thing. Why else would a child imitate if not to
emulate. When they get older we call it sharing interests, but it's the
same impulse. It is a valid reason for any child to do something that a
parent does. It is NOT the only reason.

Kelly

Julie

** Her friend who waited to be twelve finally watched it and was doing
nothing but looking for the nasty bits she had been sheltered from.**

When Mark (dh) was 12 or 13 he borrowed a Billy Idol tape from someone. One
side was 'uncensored', He said he spent hours listening to that side of the
tape trying to hear the 'bad bits'. Never could figure out what they were
and decided a few years later it was a marketing ploy.

The kids wanted to watch something a couple of nights back and I didn't
really want them to but that's my issue not theirs and had we said they
couldn't, we would have been making a big deal about nothing, giving that
show a weight or power it wouldn't have without our negative or concerned
attitudes about it. As it was, most of it went right over their heads and
they just enjoyed what they could understand.

Julie

averyschmidt

> > > But when you declare that another person won't see anything
more
> > > than that, that's when I had a problem with it. I have a
problem
> >with it
> > > in PRINCIPLE.
> >
> >Please show me exactly where I "declared" that.

> You put a call out for people to tell you if they could imagine
ANY two
> year old being interested in a program you said they wouldn't be.

I asked an honest question because I was curious what the consesus
would be among those familiar with both 2yos and the Sopranos. This
being a list with many radical unschoolers I thought that mabye I'd
get some interesting answers.
That's hardly "declaring" unequivocally that my gut feeling is
unequivocally correct. In fact, my posts have been liberally
sprinkled with "it seems" and "I can't imagine."

> And Sandra's kid's not knowing the plot to Dumbo aside, my two
year olds
> (when they were) were very good at telling me who was doing what
to whom.

So your 2yos would be able to comprehend, and summarize for you, the
nature of organized crime and why a group of men in the story were
brutally murdering a person?

> >You're definitely hearing me wrong, and I'm sorry about that.
> >Where did I say that it's the only reason they're interested in
> >things? In the context, with the information that I had to go on,
> >it seemed (and that's the word I used... SEEMS) that imitation was
> >more likely than genuine interest.

> That's what you said originally. But that has not been what
you've been
> arguing.

Show me how what I said originally is different from what I'm
arguing. I've been saying the exact same thing all along.

> It is a valid reason for any child to do something that a
> parent does. It is NOT the only reason.

<sigh>
I never said it was the only reason.
I said it seemed like the reason in the example given.
I'm sorry, but I'm done with this if you can't refrain from twisting
my words into something that you can argue with.

Patti

Kelly Muzyczka

> > It is a valid reason for any child to do something that a
> > parent does. It is NOT the only reason.
>
><sigh>
>I never said it was the only reason.
>I said it seemed like the reason in the example given.

And I said that in a broader context of all kids, and varied mature content
there could be other reasons. I'm not talking about the Sopranos. I'm
talking about ALL mature content. There are other reasons children might
be interested in a program. Sandra mentioned Rocky Horror. I've mentioned
TLOR. I suggested possibilities which you rejected out of hand.

>So your 2yos would be able to comprehend, and summarize for you, the
nature of organized crime and why a group of men in the story were
brutally murdering a person? >

Would every adult who watched it be able to do that? Or would my child be
able to say, "He's a bad man, he's angry all the time, he wants something
that man has." Honestly, our elected politicians don't understand the
nature of organized crime, why would I expect a casual viewer of a TV
program to? And it's the above kind of response that keeps me coming back
to this discussion. Because I'm not trying to do this:

>I'm sorry, but I'm done with this if you can't refrain from twisting
>my words into something that you can argue with.

I'm trying to talk about the idea of children choosing to watch mature
content for reasons of their own. Possibly for reasons we wouldn't even
see. And about not assuming a particular reason (emulation.)

Here is the bottom line of what I am saying:

I know nothing about the Sopranos and it's content. In response to your
specific suggestion that the reason a child would watch it was to emulate
it's parents, I propose that there are a multitude of reasons a child might
watch a program with adult/mature/questionable content which have to do
with the child and not the parents. You presented an answer to THAT
situation, I presented an answer to that TYPE of situation.

I'm not sure how I've twisted anything. In the specific you may well have
been correct. In the general I think there was more to say. I said it.

Kelly