Why should children be protected from violence in the media?

Question

I am trying to take both sides of the argument and am having trouble with this side. From what I've though of so far, here are some ideas:

children with less exposure to violence will be less likely to be violent in the future.

children's brains are like sponges, if they see violence, they may copy those (copycat attacks)

That's all I have so far, please give me some more ideas.

Answer 1

There is a problem with purposefully exposing children to violence in order to teach them that violence is wrong (one answerer gave). Most of the violence that children are exposed to are video games and television. They rarely just watch the news. How many parents do you know sit right there with them while they are watching television or playing video games? Most of those parents use those forms of media as a babysitter so that the parent can have some "me" time. To allow a child to see these images freely confirms to that child that those actions and attitudes are acceptable.

Children are not born with a moral conscience. It takes years for a person to learn right from wrong. Even then, it takes more years for a person to learn how to choose right over wrong in specific circumstances. Trial and error usually ends up being the means by which we do that.
One study reports:
"The average American child will have watched 100,000 acts of televised violence, including 8000 depictions of murder, by the time he or she finishes sixth grade (approximately 13 years old)." http://www.abelard.org/tv/tv.htm#abstract
In a study of teenagers, MRI images showed that "one of the last parts of the brain to complete this maturation process is the prefrontal cortex, the part of the brain responsible for planning, judgment and self-control." http://www.ahrp.org/infomail/03/08/24.php
If you are introducting violent images to your thirteen year old whose brain has not fully developed, you are contributing to their delinquency.

And you talked about children doing what they see modeled. EXACTLY! My daughters want to cook, vacuum, wash dishes, read, fix their hair, nurse their baby dolls, put diapers on their babies, take clothes out of the dryer, you name it. If I do it, they want to do it. Why? Because that's all they see. They don't act out sexual activities because they've never seen examples. The only exposure they have to violence is with other children who do watch television.

MY MAIN POINT:
CHILDREN SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO ENJOY THEIR CHILDHOOD. They should not be forced to grow up too fast by being exposed to adult issues that they are not yet capable of understanding (physically, emotionally, psychologically, spiritually). Violence, sex, drugs, alcohol, peer pressure etc.

There are enough children who are exposed to these things on a daily basis by their own parents/teachers/friends. They, and those who aren't, don't need to have to deal with this when they turn on the television for some harmless, relaxing entertainment.

You didn't ask for this, but I wanted to share with you what we do in our home.

We do not have a television. It is not because we don't want our children to know "the truth" about things. But we decide what truth they know. The truth is: children don't need to be involved in sex, children don't need to be involved in violence, children don't need to be involved in making mature moral decisions. We read a lot, therefore our 3-year-old and 15-month-old "read" a lot.

They are completely innocent-except when they go around other children who have been exposed to violence and (God help us) sex. THIS is where we TEACH them that violence is wrong-when another child hits them. And we don't let them play in bedrooms with the doors closed because we will not have some older child defiling them by introducing them to sexual ideas. These things happen.

So, am I a protective parent? YOU BET. That's my job. I wish my parents had been so protective of me when I was young. When parents "protect" their children, their children do not get sexually molested, physically abused, kidnapped, or exposed to mature content before their time.

Well, these are just my thoughts. I think it's wrong to allow children to see these things because they are still learning. And if they are seeing violence they are learning violence.

If you want more information on how to do this, I'm open to emails.

Answer 2

Humans learn by mimetic behavior. Monkey see, monkey do. They learn their attitudes as well as skills from what they see others do, especially when what they see is cast in a positive light.

Violence, glorified, sticks in a young mind.

This is why most human societies have 'morality plays' to carry on social traditions and moral values and, most importantly, to present an understanding of violence in a morally understandable framework Violence is constructive when used to eliminate oppression and tyranny. It is destructive when used for wrong purposes.

In America, the moral context of violence has been eliminated from many mainstream representations. The effect can be seen.

HOWEVER

I have personally seen that humans need an outlet for their natural aggressiveness. Competitive ports, marksmanship classes and other outlets seem to be necessary for some humans. I personally have observed that sheltering a young male from any violence may make him incapable of constructively expressing his natural aggressive tendencies, causing him to lash out in a seemingly insane manner.

Answer 3

Children with no exposure to violence are naive and sheltered. If a child is taught that violence is wrong from a young age, then there will not be a problem no matter how much they are exposed to it.

Answer 4

I think to a certain extent keeping them from violence is a good thing but some take it to far. My husbands niece is so sheltered it's ridiculous. One day she told me women don't drink beer. How ridiculous is that? I agree with you on those. Sorry, can't think of anything else right now. It's a brain fart day.

Answer 5

It will implicates the harsh realities of life in their young minds and if they absorb what they see, they may follow it.