[Andrew]

As for games, (video games I take it) that one is fairly easy, nothing rated T (teen) or M (mature) until that point in life. While they're still kids it'll only be E (everyone) and Ec (early childhood) until they're teenagers and even then I'm gonna have to look it over first.

I disagree, to an extent. If my child were fairly mature, he could play games like Star Wars: The Clone wars when he was eight years old, but I wouldn't let him play a lot of the RPG junk that comes out that is rated T. I pretty much junk ESRB because their ratings are worthless. For example, Splinter Cell (the first one) was rated T for teen, for violence. So Mom let us play it. However, there is a MASSIVE amount of language in Splinter Cell. It is becasue of that game that my brother started cussing, and thus got me into that horrible habit. I absolutely love splinter Cell, but I wouldn't let my kid play that until he is 16 or so, so that he has enough assets to realize when not to let a game affect him. If that made any sense.

[Chris]

Originally Posted by Andrew

I disagree, to an extent. If my child were fairly mature, he could play games like Star Wars: The Clone wars when he was eight years old, but I wouldn't let him play a lot of the RPG junk that comes out that is rated T. I pretty much junk ESRB because their ratings are worthless. For example, Splinter Cell (the first one) was rated T for teen, for violence. So Mom let us play it. However, there is a MASSIVE amount of language in Splinter Cell. It is becasue of that game that my brother started cussing, and thus got me into that horrible habit. I absolutely love splinter Cell, but I wouldn't let my kid play that until he is 16 or so, so that he has enough assets to realize when not to let a game affect him. If that made any sense.

that makes a lot of sense. I pretty much would use the ratings as a guideline and then I'd still need to look it over. I guess it's all just a touch and go process.

[ajacob]

Out of personal experience here, the kids I know whose parents rigorously censor their media intake are considerably more insecure and uneasy in their day to day lives. In some cases, they're far more bad-behaved and disrespectful than other kids, usually as soon as their perents are out the front door.

I don't usually make sweeping statements, but seriously - let your kids watch kid's cartoons; they'll turn out a lot better for it. It's not too hard to make a distinction between kid and adult orientated cartoons, cow and chicken, courage etc are the former; the simpsons, undergrads, dilbert are the latter.

So what if your kids get scared from the spooky monsters in courage the cowardly dog? It's called being a kid for crying out loud, let them have some fun! The same applies to stuff like harry potter and lord of the rings - it's fantasy and it's a great way to spark their imagination.

[Martavius]

....how many of the people posting in this thread (or in the forum, for that matter) are actually parents at all? No disrespect intended, but I don't necessarily feel that you're qualified to speak to this if you're not a parent. Not that you don't have a right to an opinion, just that this forum may not be the best place to voice it.

My thoughts...

First off, God has blessed my wife and I with two beautiful little girls. Sarah Rayne will be 4 years old in August, and Faith Elayne just turned 1.

I don't necessarily review everything my kids watch before they watch it (although there are some parents in my church who do just that, including my pastor), but I do try to watch what they're watching and make sure there's no inappropriate content. And if they do see something I don't approve of, or that's just a bit too mature for their age level, I try to discuss it with them in a way that they can understand, and let them know why something is wrong. The key is to stay involved and not just let the TV become your babysitter.

I'm probably more concerned at this point about sheltering them from the never-ending flood of advertising that you see on most children's programming on broadcast or cable networks. I have no desire for my children to be subjected to all that marketing. So at home, my kids only watch approved videos, DVD's, or PBS.

[RJ1]

Originally Posted by Martavius

....how many of the people posting in this thread (or in the forum, for that matter) are actually parents at all? No disrespect intended, but I don't necessarily feel that you're qualified to speak to this if you're not a parent. Not that you don't have a right to an opinion, just that this forum may not be the best place to voice it.

Too bad this is a public forum.

[Martavius]

Originally Posted by RJ1

Too bad this is a public forum.

But it is the Parenting Forum.

Maybe I didn't say what I meant clearly, so I'll give an example: Just as I wouldn't offer advice or claim to be an authority in say, the Piano Forum (to use a fictional example) - because I'm not a piano player - I feel that those that aren't parents should at least make it clear that they are not speaking from their own parenting experience so that those of us that are parents at least know the difference.

Now, did you have a comment of the rest of my post, or were you just standing up for Free Speech?

[Role Modlin]

Originally Posted by ajacob

Out of personal experience here, the kids I know whose parents rigorously censor their media intake are considerably more insecure and uneasy in their day to day lives. In some cases, they're far more bad-behaved and disrespectful than other kids, usually as soon as their perents are out the front door.

I don't usually make sweeping statements, but seriously - let your kids watch kid's cartoons; they'll turn out a lot better for it. It's not too hard to make a distinction between kid and adult orientated cartoons, cow and chicken, courage etc are the former; the simpsons, undergrads, dilbert are the latter.

So what if your kids get scared from the spooky monsters in courage the cowardly dog? It's called being a kid for crying out loud, let them have some fun! The same applies to stuff like harry potter and lord of the rings - it's fantasy and it's a great way to spark their imagination.

I don't mean to be rude, but you aren't the one to be telling parents how to raise their children. If I decide that I don't want my boys watching Courage The Cowardly Dog, it's my decision....period. And for the record, it becomes harder and harder to distinguish the difference between adult and kid shows these days because the people making them are constantly testing the limits and blurring the lines between the two.

Also, I'd love to see the proof that my kids will better people if I let them watch mindless and often crude cartoons.

Just my thoughts.

[jc-16]

what age limit are we talking here?

[Gracie Love]

Originally Posted by Lee Modlin

I don't mean to be rude, but you aren't the one to be telling parents how to raise their children. If I decide that I don't want my boys watching Courage The Cowardly Dog, it's my decision....period. And for the record, it becomes harder and harder to distinguish the difference between adult and kid shows these days because the people making them are constantly testing the limits and blurring the lines between the two.

Also, I'd love to see the proof that my kids will better people if I let them watch mindless and often crude cartoons.

Just my thoughts.

Here here!

I have pretty much banned cartoon network at my house. I mainly let the boys watch the stuff we( those of us that are 25 and above) grew up on, Nick Jr, Disney and a couple of regular nick toons and PBS kids. I won't let them watch stuff that I haven't watched first without the kids so I can decide.

I agree with Lee, We have to watch what goes into our kids.

For those of you asking my boys are 6 1/2 and 2 1/2.

[KFBobInsanesMom]

Originally Posted by ajacob

Out of personal experience here, the kids I know whose parents rigorously censor their media intake are considerably more insecure and uneasy in their day to day lives. In some cases, they're far more bad-behaved and disrespectful than other kids, usually as soon as their perents are out the front door.

I don't usually make sweeping statements, but seriously - let your kids watch kid's cartoons; they'll turn out a lot better for it. It's not too hard to make a distinction between kid and adult orientated cartoons, cow and chicken, courage etc are the former; the simpsons, undergrads, dilbert are the latter.

So what if your kids get scared from the spooky monsters in courage the cowardly dog? It's called being a kid for crying out loud, let them have some fun! The same applies to stuff like harry potter and lord of the rings - it's fantasy and it's a great way to spark their imagination.

Nate didn't see a tv until he was 7 years old and he turned out just fine. We didn't have any type video game system until he was about 11. Please don't imply that children turn out better if they are tv addicts. My boys have never been insecure, bad behaved, or disrespectful. Maybe its because they didn't watch tv that they turned out that way.

[Art]

Originally Posted by KFBobInsanesMom

Nate didn't see a tv until he was 7 years old and he turned out just fine. We didn't have any type video game system until he was about 11. Please don't imply that children turn out better if they are tv addicts. My boys have never been insecure, bad behaved, or disrespectful. Maybe its because they didn't watch tv that they turned out that way.

Nobody implied that. Not every kid who watches TV is addicted to it.

[Grasshopper359]

Originally Posted by Martavius

But it is the Parenting Forum.

Maybe I didn't say what I meant clearly, so I'll give an example: Just as I wouldn't offer advice or claim to be an authority in say, the Piano Forum (to use a fictional example) - because I'm not a piano player - I feel that those that aren't parents should at least make it clear that they are not speaking from their own parenting experience so that those of us that are parents at least know the difference.

Now, did you have a comment of the rest of my post, or were you just standing up for Free Speech?

I see your point, but at the same time, I have to disagree. You're insinuating that people who have no children have no experience, and this excludes the fact that everybody has some experience in parenting, largely due to the fact that we were all parented. We can look at how we were raised, and determine if we would follow the same course of action as our parents, or do things differently.

For example, when I was growing up (and those who know me will understand that I use that term very liberally ), I was not allowed to watch anything fastastic, violent, or vulgar. Hypothetically speaking, if I were a parent, I would apply the same standard to video games for my children (since I'm quite familiar with what the stores stock their shelves with these days). Why? Well, I would prefer my parenting mistakes to be made on the side of over-protection; I would rather be too strict with my children's upbringing than too lenient. Now, that's possibly the soldier in me speaking, or it could be that this is the principle that my parents applied, or both. Do I think that this will make them into angels? Of course not. But I would feel obligated to do my best to raise my hypothetical children according to a standard that I thought was appropriate. And hypothetically speaking, this would involve a hypothetical discussion with my hypothetical wife over the hypothetical way to raise our hypothetical family. Go ahead and call me a disciplinarian, but that's how I see it. Hypothetically, that is.

[Grasshopper359]

Originally Posted by Andrew

I disagree, to an extent. If my child were fairly mature, he could play games like Star Wars: The Clone wars when he was eight years old, but I wouldn't let him play a lot of the RPG junk that comes out that is rated T. I pretty much junk ESRB because their ratings are worthless. For example, Splinter Cell (the first one) was rated T for teen, for violence. So Mom let us play it. However, there is a MASSIVE amount of language in Splinter Cell. It is because of that game that my brother started cussing, and thus got me into that horrible habit. I absolutely love splinter Cell, but I wouldn't let my kid play that until he is 16 or so, so that he has enough assets to realize when not to let a game affect him. If that made any sense.

Yep. And I agree.

[sparklystuff]

Originally Posted by Art

Nobody implied that. Not every kid who watches TV is addicted to it.

Just to throw my two sense in. I don't have children, but I am in college for child development, so I guess that counts for something.

Children under the age of 2 years old should not even see a television screen when it is on. TV is passive, and the child not only does not gain anything, it actual inhibits brain growth. After the age of two, TV should be limited to 30-60 minutes a day. Preferably age appropriate programs, or better yet videos without commercials. Our 30 minute children's programs now, with a commercial ever 7.5 minutes inhibits the children from learning to be engaged in a plot for a long period of time, and it also makes their attention span very short. If child are to watch TV, make it a video.

As far as video games go, they are not as bad, because they are more agressive than passive. You are getting some hand-eye coordination, as well as problem solving skills, and some fine motor in manpulating the buttons. This should be in moderation as well, and of course non-violent games are the only appropriate ones, until the child is old enough to distinguish between fantasy and real.

Music, reading, playing outside, using real toys (not video games) enhance creativity and imagination far from what TV can ever do.

[Role Modlin]

Originally Posted by sparklystuff

Just to throw my two sense in. I don't have children, but I am in college for child development, so I guess that counts for something.

While I commend you for getting an education, those classes are nothing compared to actually having children.

Originally Posted by ss

Children under the age of 2 years old should not even see a television screen when it is on. TV is passive, and the child not only does not gain anything, it actual inhibits brain growth. After the age of two, TV should be limited to 30-60 minutes a day. Preferably age appropriate programs, or better yet videos without commercials. Our 30 minute children's programs now, with a commercial ever 7.5 minutes inhibits the children from learning to be engaged in a plot for a long period of time, and it also makes their attention span very short. If child are to watch TV, make it a video.

These are generalizations and can't be applied to every single child. Although I agree that there isn't much for an 18 month old child to watch. Even the Teletubbies are a little beyond their grasp at that age.

Originally Posted by ss

As far as video games go, they are not as bad, because they are more agressive than passive. You are getting some hand-eye coordination, as well as problem solving skills, and some fine motor in manpulating the buttons. This should be in moderation as well, and of course non-violent games are the only appropriate ones, until the child is old enough to distinguish between fantasy and real.

I would disagree with the video games being better than television. There isn't a whole heck of a lot of difference. Put the kids in the yard and let them play. I don't approve of the violent video games no matter what the age. I guess I'm a prude.

Originally Posted by ss

Music, reading, playing outside, using real toys (not video games) enhance creativity and imagination far from what TV can ever do.

Bravo. Spoken like a parent.

Good post.