Mom lets 5-year-old drive

[Heracles 417]

Adolescents who watch more than three hours of TV daily are more likely to engage in aggressive behavior as adults, a new study says.

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/HEALTH/parent...ence/index.html

Source: Columbia University's Jeffrey Johnson, lead researcher

Edited September 5, 2007 by Boo-Yah!

[Heracles 417]

Quite a bit of apparent 'anecdotal' evidence out there..

CHILDHOOD EXPOSURE TO MEDIA VIOLENCE PREDICTS YOUNG ADULT AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR, ACCORDING TO A NEW 15-YEAR STUDY

Children's viewing of violent TV shows, their identification with aggressive same-sex TV characters, and their perceptions that TV violence is realistic are all linked to later aggression as young adults, for both males and females. That is the conclusion of a 15-year longitudinal study of 329 youth ublished in the March issue of Developmental Psychology, a journal of the American Psychological Association (APA).

These findings hold true for any child from any family, regardless of the child's initial aggression levels, their intellectual capabilities, their social status as measured by their parents' education or occupation, their parents' aggressiveness, or the mother's and father's parenting style.

http://www.apa.org/releases/media_violence.html

Source: University of Michigan

Edited September 5, 2007 by Boo-Yah!

[Peikko 1,575]

Sure, but that still doesn't make it a trend or statistically significant. When you find a study that does state that there is a quantifiable difference between how parents brought up chidren 60 years ago and now, and how this is directly causing detrimental effect on the childrenby all means post it. Until then, these stories don't mount up to a hill of beans.

[Heracles 417]

Sure, but that still doesn't make it a trend or statistically significant. When you find a study that does state that there is a quantifiable difference between how parents brought up chidren 60 years ago and now, and how this is directly causing detrimental effect on the childrenby all means post it. Until then, these stories don't mount up to a hill of beans.

I don't need to find a study to prove that. The changes are interrelated. 60 years ago only one parent worked. 60 years ago kids had nowhere near the same access to violence now on TV or the net. 60 years ago instilling values where an integral part of raising a child.

For you to sit here and deny a difference in the way kids are raised today to 60 years ago is just a joke. Next your going to tell me watching My Sweet 16, on MTV, is the same as watching Mary Poppins..

Anyway, I never said all parents today are bad parents. It does not take a genius to distinguish the good kids from the trouble makers in public. I bet most of the good kids are raised with good family values. When I look back at school, I realized that most of the trouble makers came from broken homes.

Edited September 5, 2007 by Boo-Yah!

[Peikko 1,575]

So, what is your point exactly? You have finally acknowledged that there are decent, good parents out there. I would ascert that the majority of parents are like that. That there are bad parents is not news. However, it's not news that there have always been bad parents. Your idealistic view of how life was in the early part of the 20th century is rather niave and not based on anything except 'stylised' tv prgrammes at best. Life has never been Mary Poppins, life is tough for most people. Adults today do instil values in their children and not everyone is happy for their kids to watch anything and everything. Why make out that somehow everything is going to the dogs when clearly, if you look about you, this is simply not true. Or do you go around with your eyes closed to reality and just accept what the media produces as the true picture of how things really are?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I must have missed the specific basis for comparison between the 1950's and now to see where these conclusions are being drawn from...

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Quite a bit of apparent 'anecdotal' evidence out there..

CHILDHOOD EXPOSURE TO MEDIA VIOLENCE PREDICTS YOUNG ADULT AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR, ACCORDING TO A NEW 15-YEAR STUDY

Children's viewing of violent TV shows, their identification with aggressive same-sex TV characters, and their perceptions that TV violence is realistic are all linked to later aggression as young adults, for both males and females. That is the conclusion of a 15-year longitudinal study of 329 youth ublished in the March issue of Developmental Psychology, a journal of the American Psychological Association (APA).

These findings hold true for any child from any family, regardless of the child's initial aggression levels, their intellectual capabilities, their social status as measured by their parents' education or occupation, their parents' aggressiveness, or the mother's and father's parenting style.

http://www.apa.org/releases/media_violence.html

Source: University of Michigan

Not new. The operative word here is 'might' cause aggressive behavior. Again big difference between starting a fight with your brother and torturing a kid to death and leaving him on railway lines.

Even so - the criticism is not new. Marvel Comics and rock music were often subject to this sort of rationale.

[Heracles 417]

So, what is your point exactly? You have finally acknowledged that there are decent, good parents out there. I would ascert that the majority of parents are like that. That there are bad parents is not news. However, it's not news that there have always been bad parents. Your idealistic view of how life was in the early part of the 20th century is rather niave and not based on anything except 'stylised' tv prgrammes at best. Life has never been Mary Poppins, life is tough for most people. Adults today do instil values in their children and not everyone is happy for their kids to watch anything and everything. Why make out that somehow everything is going to the dogs when clearly, if you look about you, this is simply not true. Or do you go around with your eyes closed to reality and just accept what the media produces as the true picture of how things really are?

I understand what you are getting at. My whole point was to bring to light the various problems kids face such as bad parenting to being bombarded, by violence, in the form of entertainment. Through the actions and negligence of the kid's mothers, in the original post, her kids are probably going to be negatively affected for life..

PS What would you say is the cause or catalyst to the growing number of juveniles convicted of crime, as well as growing sexual crimes committed by juveniles and the high juvenile incarceration rates??

Edited September 5, 2007 by Boo-Yah!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

So, what is your point exactly? You have finally acknowledged that there are decent, good parents out there. I would ascert that the majority of parents are like that. That there are bad parents is not news. However, it's not news that there have always been bad parents. Your idealistic view of how life was in the early part of the 20th century is rather niave and not based on anything except 'stylised' tv prgrammes at best. Life has never been Mary Poppins, life is tough for most people. Adults today do instil values in their children and not everyone is happy for their kids to watch anything and everything. Why make out that somehow everything is going to the dogs when clearly, if you look about you, this is simply not true. Or do you go around with your eyes closed to reality and just accept what the media produces as the true picture of how things really are?

I understand what you are getting at. My whole point was to bring to light the various problems kids face such as bad parenting to being bombarded, by violence, in the form of entertainment. Through the actions and negligence of the kid's mothers, in the original post, her kids are probably going to be negatively affected for life..

PS What would you say is the cause or catalyst to the growing number of juveniles convicted of crime, as well as growing sexual crimes committed by juveniles and the high juvenile incarceration rates??

Mary Poppins

[Peikko 1,575]

You'll not find it. It's a lot of rhetoric and hot air. I never quite get why some people believe the 'it was so good in xxxxx'. Quite honestly, as a child of the 70's I am quite aware that all the 'bad stuff' that the media focus on today, was around then too. Some kids went down that road (and not because they were from 'broken homes' or had parents who didn't try to instil values') but just because some kids make bad choices. Sometimes these bad choices have to be lived with a long time, sometimes people get away with them. That's life.

Of course, the more impoverished your life is, the more problems you are going to encounter. But, even saying that, I don't see exactly how bringing back corporal punishment is somehow going to 'fix' the problems that exist, regardless of the proportion we are talking about (and it's surely a small proportion of the whole).

Still, let's all look to the day when women stay at home and cook the hubbies a nice meal, bring them the slippers and always do the laundry as required, that'll be a great step forward for families

[Peikko 1,575]

Oh, and the negligence of kid's mothers is always to blame? That's a new twist.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I never quite get why some people believe the 'it was so good in xxxxx'.

As I said - usually its the elderly who make those kinds of claims. Stereotypically of course.

Even so - can someone just out of their 20's really have an authoritative perspective on a decade that they didn't live through?

I can say that the 60's looked like a cool time to live through - I'm sure it wasn't all wild sex and a soft drugs.

[Heracles 417]

You'll not find it. It's a lot of rhetoric and hot air. I never quite get why some people believe the 'it was so good in xxxxx'. Quite honestly, as a child of the 70's I am quite aware that all the 'bad stuff' that the media focus on today, was around then too. Some kids went down that road (and not because they were from 'broken homes' or had parents who didn't try to instil values') but just because some kids make bad choices. Sometimes these bad choices have to be lived with a long time, sometimes people get away with them. That's life.

Of course, the more impoverished your life is, the more problems you are going to encounter. But, even saying that, I don't see exactly how bringing back corporal punishment is somehow going to 'fix' the problems that exist, regardless of the proportion we are talking about (and it's surely a small proportion of the whole).

Still, let's all look to the day when women stay at home and cook the hubbies a nice meal, bring them the slippers and always do the laundry as required, that'll be a great step forward for families

I am talking 40's 50's.. 70's was a ####### era..

Every action or decision has a reaction or consequences. As more women go to work, a child spends less time interacting with their parents. Therefore they are more likely to view the people on TV as role model. This stuff is there in those articles I posted.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Perhaps you forgot the major, world changing event that took place between 1939 and 1945? The US fared better than most - but the working male population was decimated, the 50's and 60's were very much about getting back on track. Lot more opportunities in the 50's than there are now. Arguably of course, and less so for women.

Edited September 5, 2007 by Number 6

[Peikko 1,575]

But, what you are saying is just, well, I am trying to find a polite term. Children of the 40's had both parents out the home. The mothers were busy building bombs and airplanes, the guys out figthing the war or down the mines (simplistic, I admit, but you get the picture). The 50's saw, it is true, a resurgance of the call for family values, but was an era dogged by gangs and new fangled music and oh yeah, drugs!

The 60's and 70's pretty much more of the same...erm, what was that I was saying, plus ca change, plus ca rest le meme?