ot.........scary movies and kids
Find a Conversation
| Mon, 08-01-2005 - 11:37pm |
bad mommy and daddy report tonight..we were channel surfing and dh decides to announce that we're going to watch the abc movie sixth sense. i'm saying no way and the oldest two, ages 6 and almost 8, are all for it because it's *scaaaaaary*. at every commercial i'm saying it's just make believe it's just make believe and even encouraged a channel change. we watched the entire movie and when it was time to go to bed, my oldest asked a genuine question: what do you do if (big emphasis on *if*) things pop out of the television mom? i reminded her that it was only a movie and that would never happen. she was certain i was wrong and kept asking "but what *if*...." i said it wouldn't happen and included other shows that wouldn't pop out either like her favorites spongebob and lizzie mcguire.
i feel so bad that these kids watched this movie. are there limits on programming at your home and would you have handled the scenario the same way with children at this age? tia for any btdt or advice.
m3t who can't wait til the school year starts so we can get back into a routine of 8P bedtime.

Pages
"So, you are still pushing the Harris book?" Yes, I still recommend it. I thought it was insightful, witty, controversial, important, and I liked the way it really made me think about what I have at stake as a parent. Just because I said something flip like, "Good, Harris is full of crap" and my efforts as a SAHM are thus not in vain does not mean I don't recommend the book. (It doesn't even mean that I think Harris is full of crap, actually. You aren't humor impaired, are you? There was a humor component to my comment which I thought was pretty obvious. You also need to consider that I wasn't in a position to continue debating with Laura indefinitely. She noted her level of expertise and I provided the information I could and I really felt like I needed to let the debate go. I respect Laura enough not to put her through tons of posts when it was completely unnecessary. I wasn't willing to type the whole book out nor was I willing to discredit what Laura was telling me.) While I was reading the book, I certainly wished that Harris could be completely discredited because the stuff she writes is pretty threatening to a person who has dedicated a major portion of her life and a chunk of her identity to being an involved parent. I read the book, got angry, thought about it, let it ruminate in the back of my mind, absorbed some of the information, and I am currently still forming my opinion on the matter of how much influence parents have over how their children turn out. The case isn't closed for me. Do you think because I am still considering the issue, have not come to a definitive result, am still keeping my mind open, that I should not be recommending the book? I love books that really make me THINK. And this one did. Just because it raised more questions than answered does not mean it is a book unworthy to recommend to others. (I assumed you would enjoy a chance to really THINK about the topic, especially since you seemed to have found Freakonomics interesting.)
I didn't say that I concede that the book is full of crap. Nice way to twist.
I have in front of me both my post 1163 and your post 1153. I'm not a big fan of reliving history but you are so far off (and so determined to smear me) that I'm going to do it.
You wrote to mondomom (1153):
-----------------------------------
<> I don't understand how anyone could begin to calculate how much time a child is specifically influenced by his parent. Are you saying that, I sah, but if I mult-task better, then I could influence my children's morals and manners in less time?
I think, using pure math only, that sahps spend more time with infants and the entire pre-K set than do wohps. But it sounds like you think that's just my ego talking and that the reality is - and the math is - that someone like my husband - a wohp - can spend as much time with my children as I do?
<> It depends what age. Did you read "Freakonomics?" It's interesting and says that at certain ages, peers have more influence on children than do their parents. It also says a child's name can even be a huge influence. I just think there's no way to quantify any of your arguments here. For instance, at what specific point is a child "saturated" and no more parental involvement will have any influence on a particular moral value?"
---------------------------------------
That paragraph just above was where you told me that Freakonomics was interesting to you and you mentioned the peer/parent influence topic. So I popped in to contribute to the discussion.
And I wrote to you (1163):
----------------------------------------
"You need to read The Nurture Assumption by Judith Rich Harris. I think that's where the guy from Freakonomics gets his stuff on the influence of peers.
The topic is highly contested. The people who have been telling us for years that we (as parents) have the most influence (most of the academy) are VERY threatened by the concept that maybe we don't make as big of a difference as we think, at least not through our nurturing. (We make plenty of difference in giving our children our genetic information.)
(Just for kicks I wanted to share one of Judith Harris's observations about peer influence. She talks about how immigrant children who know no English can grow up in a home where only the "old" language is spoken and as long as they start school here soon enough (say, about 7 or 8,) the children will grow up with accent-less English. What exactly does that say about parental influence?)
BTW, this is one of my favorite topics!"
-----------------------------------------
Now I know I spend a lot of time in the sun today and I know that there is a history of Alzheimer's in my family, but I don't see anything in post 1163 that claims that Judith Harris "says peer influence can be so strong, a child may learn the language of his peers...but not that of his parents!" Could you point it out please? Is it possible that you read my sentence and misunderstood it to mean ""...the children will grow up with accent-less English" and none of the "old" language?" But of course, it doesn't say that. It doesn't say ANYTHING about childrens' acquisition of the "old" language. I guess I thought it was pretty obvious that a child coming here from another country would have already acquired the language of his parents. It is the fact that the child would develop English without an accent (from his peers) that is supposed to be remarkable.
I really wish you'd take back your comments that I have faulty recall of the book.
And I hate to even mention it because it sounds so self-serving, but did you notice that I recommended a book which openly threatens my importance as a SAHP, and that later, I suggested to a passionate Catholic that she at least read the book about the leaders of her Church who contributed to a heartrenching scandal? Do you see the connection?
We just had another piece on the news last night about a woman stating she was abused as a child by her villages priest. And others are joining with her to file complaints against him. *sigh*. Sometimes I think this stuff is going to keep coming out for years.
I wonder sometimes if the stigma the church places on homosexuality might lead *some* (not all or even many) young men to a *calling* to the priesthood. Catholicism advocates celibacy for homosexuals, priests are celibate, I wonder how many young men might have seen it as a potential solution to their *problem* of being gay...I've heard that there is a lot of gay activity in seminarys, although I have no idea as to the truth of that rumor.
Dj
"Now when I need help, I look in the mirror" ~Kanye West~
>>Of course, that it would cause quite a scene should he give it a try
sigh....go back and read the rebutal with savcal...or let me try and summarize: dh *could* receive communion at my church because *they* wouldn't know the diference but because he has the utmost respect for my tradition, he would never (unless of course he converted).........what does any of it have to do with making a scene? what scene?
you do realize that there are (noncatholics) that do partake in communion at my church? i'm going out on a limb here but i remember being in chicago and visiting a church for sunday mass once. this church was in the inner city with lots of homeless on the streets. a few of them sat in the back until the sacrament of communion was administered. they marched up and took the host....no amen no nothing.
>>also * that we believe we are in communion with the Catholic Church.*
so remarkably put......again.
go visit your own posts in this thread pumpkinangel.........really!
you have argued then rebuted your own points plenty of times here.
Pages