Every Friday my syndicated column appears in a bunch of newspapers in southeastern Ontario. Here's this week's!
Parents are naturally protective. We moms always carry band-aids in our purses in case of boo boos. We warn our children to steer clear of strangers, to look both ways before crossing the street, and to wash their hands carefully in public restrooms. We want our kids to stay safe when it comes to any kind of physical harm.
Yet when it comes to life and relationships, many of us do the exact opposite. We believe that if you "shelter" kids, you're dooming them to lives of geekdom and ignorance. Sheltering is seen as something cruel, perpetrated by strange, nerdy parents on their equally nerdy offspring, because those parents are scared that their children will wander too far from the nest. Trying to maintain some innocence on behalf of kids, or even some teenagers, is thus seen as bad parenting.
I've never really understood this. After all, there’s a world of difference between preparing your children for life and exposing them to that life too early. What happens when you've got tomato seedlings and you want to plant them outside? You shelter them, planting them on a cloudy day, so that they aren't exposed to the rough world all at once. Sheltering is necessary with plants, and I think it's necessary with our children, too. If we don't shelter, we're just letting our society raise our kids. And would you trust our Charlie Sheen “tiger blood” culture to do that?
Kids deserve to be kids, and that means they deserve to live a life where they’re learning, exploring, and playing, without feeling like they have to act like adults. They don’t need a boyfriend or a girlfriend. They don’t need to smoke or drink. They don’t need to understand sex jokes. But when we expose them to too much television; when we don’t monitor what we say in front of them; when we encourage them when they act in any way sexual; then we’re stealing their childhood. For an 8-year-old to be wanting a boyfriend because that's what she sees on television is just plain stupid, and I don’t know why so many adults think it’s cute.
Yet we live in a world where innocent and naïve have become synonyms. Of course being naïve, and not knowing how the world works, is bad. But being innocent is a good thing! It is simply wrong for a ten-year-old to be swearing, chasing down the opposite sex, or telling rude jokes. Let kids watch too many adult themed movies, though, and that is what they are going to believe is natural and normal.
It’s not only an issue of values, though. It’s also simply a practical issue of time. I wasted much of my childhood and a ton of my adulthood on TV. I only started writing and speaking (which is now my career) when I got rid of the box. If you want children who are creative, talented, and smart, then perhaps limiting all the junk that comes in through the media is a good first step. Give them time to read good books, to practice an instrument, to dream up new worlds or new games. That’s ever so much better than watching a television show which is going to make them feel inferior if they’re not being pursued by the opposite sex.
We can’t shelter kids from everything bad, but we can certainly try to preserve their childhood. Monitor the television (or get rid of it). Spend more time as a family doing sports, reading books, or playing board games. Get involved in their schools. Just don't let the media influence your kids too much. That's not preparing kids for life; it’s abdicating the most important job you will ever have. And it truly is a shame that so many parents think that’s okay.
Don't miss a Reality Check! Sign up to receive it FREE in your inbox every week!
If there's one big thing I regret about my life it would be the seven years I spent taking undergraduate and graduate degrees in Sociology. I wish so much that I had taken something more intellectual, more grounded, more truthful. Instead, all we heard about was anti-capitalism, anti-male, anti-conservative, all the time.
When I was immersed in it I largely believed it. I may not have bought the "family and marriage are patriarchal institutions" garbage, but I did a lot of research on woman abuse and the portrayal of women in the media.
And I did largely believe most of the tenets of feminism. I don't anymore; I'm more a Christina Hoff Sommers equality feminist, not an identity feminist. I think women and men should have the same opportunities, but not necessarily the same results. But I definitely am concerned about the sexualization of women in the media.
Of course, in university we are told that it is the left--and socialism--that protects women, while it is the right and Christians which denigrate them. But after what David Letterman said on his show the other night, I think we can pretty much put that to rest.
I won't even bother with the full quote, because it's so vile, but basically he made fun about a ball player raping Willow Palin, who is only 14. He now claims that he meant Bristol, who of course is 18, as if making fun of her sexuality is somehow okay.
I have a 14-year-old daughter. If you joke about her having sex, I would send my husband to punch your lights out. I would have a very hard time keeping my cool.
But people want to attack Sarah Palin, and the way they do this is by attacking her daughters using sexual innuendos. Who's next? Piper, who is 6, I believe?
They may not like Palin's policies, but why do they think that because she is a conservative it's okay to make fun of her daughter? It's not okay to make fun of Chelsea Clinton, or Obama's daughters. They should be completely off limits. But this tendency to attack conservative women and their families in sexual terms is absolutely despicable, and shows that liberals aren't into feminism at all. They just simply want their own version of the world to triumph, and that version leaves room to attack women who aren't of their political persuasion.
How about standing up for decency for all women, no matter what the political spectrum? What about standing up for Afghani women or Iraqi women, even if you disapproved of the war there? Shouldn't those women deserve our support? What about standing up for Muslim women who don't want unequal rights under sharia law? Why don't we stand up for them, instead of ignoring their plight because it's easier to bash Christians than it is to attack Islam?
Misogyny is alive and well in the world, but it is just as alive and well on the liberal side of the spectrum as it is anywhere else. I'm not a Letterman fan, but I will never ever watch a show of his again. What he said was beyond the pale. It was inexcusable. And we need to stand against it; not because of politics, but because women and girls deserve better.
Okay, all, thanks for your comments on my movie post below!
I'm glad that most of you agreed with me, but a few of you made some really good points that some serious movies are good, including Fireproof or Expelled. Absolutely.
I agree, and I've written a review of Fireproof here.
But here's my point: if you're in a movie rental store, don't ever get a movie that says that it "exposes" something. Really. Unless you have already heard about it and someone that you love and agree with has recommended it. I know Expelled was good, but most movies that claim to expose something simply are bashing traditional concepts of liberty or freedom or Christianity.
I'm not against serious movies. I'm not even against violent movies. I absolutely loved Band of Brothers, the miniseries. But if you rent a movie just based on what is said on the cover, you're in for a disappointment unless you stick to light comedies.
If, on the other hand, you've done your research, then it's fine to branch out. But be careful of movie jackets! They don't tell the whole picture.
One more thought that I should have put in that Movie Translator: If the film says, "Winner of Umpteen Gazillion Academy Awards", and those awards were given out in the last decade, on the whole you should run very quickly away. That's not a blanket statement; some Academy Award winners are worth it. But most are not. Most movies are awarded these days for being politically correct or shocking to traditional values. So do your research before you go to the movie rental store. And be careful little eyes what you see!
I am extremely disenchanted whenever I go to the video store. There just isn't anything decent to see.
Think about this: in the early 1960s, The Sound of Music won Picture of the Year. The vast majority of Americans had seen it.
Today, fewer than 15% go to a movie theatre at all.
And it's not just because we have DVD players. It's because most movies are awful.
Every now and then Keith and I say, "We're just pessimistic. We're being silly. There has be good stuff out there!" And so we rent a movie only to turn it off halfway.
It's not that good movies don't make kajillions. They do. Think Passion of the Christ, The Incredibles, or Finding Nemo. Movies for families, or with broad moral appeal, make money. Movies that are violent and degrading don't make as much. It's a simple fact.
And yet Hollywood streams out trash because Hollywood is trash. I don't mean to be judgmental, but I truly believe that's all most of them know. So, in order to help you when you go to rent movies, I would like to present to you my Movie Translator:
If a movie cover proclaims the movie is "edgy" They mean: It was written by someone who was high on drugs at the time.
If it "probes the depths of human relationships" They mean, it portrays really degrading sexual fantasies.
If it is "illuminating", They mean: it shows the perversion of the dark side of human nature.
If it is "insightful", see above. It's only insightful if you want to understand your whacked out sociology professor who has experimented with most recreational and hard-core drugs, and whose children are currently incarcerated.
If it is "biting": It bites. Leave it alone.
If it is "realistic": They mean: The person calling it that grew up in a crack house with a single mother and her fourteen lovers who were in and out of jail, and was in juvenile detention himself for most of his teenage life.
If it "exposes" something: They mean: We believe all authority is corrupt, and only people with no education except indoctrination are able to see how evil all of government currently is. And you're evil if you don't agree! Oh, and Harry Truman was a war criminal. So was Abraham Lincoln. So get with the program, people!
If it shows "a mid-life crisis": They mean: some old guy is going to take advantage of some really young girl and make us think it's okay.
So what are you allowed to get? Look only for these adjectives:
That's it. Nothing else. If it shows anything "insightful, probing, or realistic", run very fast out of the rental shop. Very, very fast.
For instance, recently we rented "Rachel Getting Married". Here's the tagline:
When KYM (Anne Hathaway) returns to the Buchman family home for the wedding of her sister RACHEL (Rosemarie Dewitt), she brings a long history of personal crisis and family conflict along with her.
For some reason the "personal crisis and family conflict" didn't raise a red flag to me. It should have. The movie is garbage, whether or not Anne Hathaway acted well. We turned it off after 45 minutes. I kept thinking it was going to be funny, about a wedding, just like "Father of the Bride" that we rewatched last week. Wrong. Unless you find people just getting out of rehab and sleeping with someone they met five minutes ago and swearing at everyone is funny.
Here's the thing: some of these movies may very well be insightful. Some of them may depict the reality of the American family. But who still wants to see them? I want to be inspired and entertained, not challenged and lectured at. So make movies to make me feel uplifted, not like I need a bath afterwards.
If you have any other tips you'd like to add, please do so! I'd love to add to this list. I might turn it into a column soon!
UPDATE: Thanks for all your comments! I've written a follow up post addressing some of them here.
I remember way back when VCRs first became popular. I think I was in high school.
Most people didn't buy the videos--they were quite expensive. But we did rent movies. Lots of them. It was tons of fun.
When DVD players became the new standard, suddenly people's movie collections ballooned.
Part of this, I think, was the idea that DVDs wouldn't deteriorate the way videos do. So it was just simply an improvement in technology.
But the other thing was that our whole way of watching movies changed.
I remember movies I saw as a child, and many of them I can still quote. I remember whole episodes of WKRP in Cincinnatti that I only saw once, but they're still with me ("As God is my witness, Andy, I thought turkeys could fly.")
We rarely saw things twice. And so when DVDs came out, I thought it was strange that everybody was buying movies. Why do that if you're not going to watch the movie over and over? And who would want to do that, anyway?
I've since changed my opinion. A large part of the blame is Hollywood's. I am so sure that I will absolutely hate 98% of new movies that I'd rather watch an older one I haven't seen in quite a few years, because I'll likely enjoy it more. So if it's a movie we really like it, we buy it.
The other is simply the price factor. We usually pick up movies in the $10 and under bargain bins. At that price, it's the same as renting it twice. So why not own it? Chances are the kids may want to see it when they're older, too.
It's no wonder that we don't go out to movies anymore. They rarely live up to the hype. But I also rarely find new rentals that I enjoy. Anyone seen anything good lately that's just come out? I haven't. But I'm open to suggestions.
About Me: I'm a Christian author of a bunch of books, and a frequent speaker to women's groups and marriage conferences. Best of all, I love homeschooling my daughters, Rebecca and Katie. And I love to knit. Preferably simultaneously.
Stumble It!
