October 21st, 2005

Previous Entry Next Entry
02:32 am - on domineering housewives...

(22 comments | Leave a comment)

on domineering housewives... - graffiti.maverick — LiveJournal

• Recent Entries
• Friends
• Archive
> ChrisMaverick dot com
• profile

Art & Photography
> 365 Days of Mav
> Elseworld.com
> Mav's Flickr Stream
> MavTV (youtube)
> Party Nook

> International Males
> IWC Wrestling
> BDW Wrestling
> CWF Wrestling

> Mav's DVD Library
> Verdandi (currently down)
> Mav's Schedule (currently down)
> Mav's MySpace
chrismaverick. Get yours at flagrantdisregard.com/flickr


[User Picture]From: marsinthestars Date: October 21st, 2005 - 02:57 pm (Link)
I'm really amused by the ratings. Particularly looking at how American Idol is ok (no problem than those people are hyped up on Lord knows what), but That 70s Show is BAD! Where's Jerry Springer on the list, I have to wonder? Are reality shows not counted?

As far as not showing kids violence, I think it's hard to draw the line- it's ok to show them explosives with Bugs Bunny, because... because they can't get explosives? Because it's a cartoon? Who knows. But it's not ok to show a punch on screen, because... they might think that's ok? It's hard to decide.

I do know that if a kid is told not to hit, but is hit, they will end up with fucked up values and even more fucked up sense of right and wrong when it comes to defending themselves. But seeing people hitting people- good guys hitting and being rewarded for it, and then being told they can't hit people? I don't know. Does this undermine the idea that Mommy and Daddy are Always Right (at least when it comes to house rules and looking both ways before crossing the street?). Or is it a matter of teaching boundaries, and the difference between pretend and real, or the difference between school life and wrestling practice life?
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: October 21st, 2005 - 03:29 pm (Link)
American Idol is a reality show, as are Three Wishes and Extreme Makeover: Home Edition. Jerry Springer isn't rated because the list is only for prime-time network TV. Springer is both syndicated and generally not airing in primetime either.

Anyway, don't look too hard for consistency in the PTC. That's never been one of their strong suits. Its just about pushing their agenda, as arbitrary as it may be.

See, I'm not so much with the concept of teaching that hitting is wrong. I'm more the concept of teaching general morality. Its more important to understand why hitting is bad then it is to just know that you aren't allowed to do it. If you also understand that parents (and kids aren't) are in a position of authority and that disobediance to the authorities yields repercussions, then there shouldn't be any problems.

I hate the current popular viewpoint of "it is always wrong to hit a child, because it will teach the child that hitting is ok." Simply put, yes, but that's true of any disciplining. My 3-year-old neice thinks its ok to arbitrarilly hand out "time-out punishments" whenever someone pisses her off. And she will throw a fit if the punishments aren't enforced. Because she doesn't understand the concept of authority. She simply understands that when you're mad you ground someone. In my mind, this is not really any better than her hitting people. The issue isn't about how much physical harm a child can cause. Its about the child knowing his/her powers and responsibilities, and understanding what is and isn't allowed and how that may be different for different people.
From: (Anonymous) Date: October 21st, 2005 - 06:35 pm (Link)
And she will throw a fit if the punishments aren't enforced. Because she doesn't understand the concept of authority.

But if she feels that authority figures always have the right to hurt her, she will have a whole new set of problems, as opposed to recognizing that authority figures have the right to set her aside when she isn't behaving. I agree that there is a need to separate between authority figures' and children's decisions, but there is also a need to separate hitting and punishment.
[User Picture]From: marsinthestars Date: October 21st, 2005 - 06:40 pm (Link)

sorry, that was me above.

Sorry, that was me above
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: October 21st, 2005 - 06:55 pm (Link)

Re: sorry, that was me above.

no problem... I answered it... (so you know, you probably didn't get mail aboit it)
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: October 21st, 2005 - 06:54 pm (Link)
I don't see how that follows. If she feels that authority figures always have the right to hit her, then she'd also feel that the authority figures always have the right to ground her. If she sees grounding as only a punishment for misbehavior, then she should see spanking the same way. The actual punishment is therefore arbitrary. I'm not saying that this justifies spanking. It just doesn't prove its wrong either. Form of the punishment is agnostic to your argument.

Now arguments about how physical punishment might affect the psyche of the child in an abusive/damaging manner, I would consider. But that's totally different.

Or is there more you're saying that I am missing?
[User Picture]From: marsinthestars Date: October 21st, 2005 - 07:03 pm (Link)
Sorry, maybe I'm not being clear.

I think it's easier to teach a child "I can ground you as punishment because parents are allowed to do that. You can't ground me because you are not an authority figure, you can't enforce this, and you're not allowed to" than to teach them "I can hit you as punishment" for all the same reasons. On a basic level, simply because a child can hit back, and can learn the power of violence- because, yeah, it does hurt mommy or daddy just as much as it hurts little jimmy. Also, I think if it's hitting instead of grounding, the focus of the child turns away from "I did something I'm not allowed to do" into "that hurt, and now I'm angry."

So yeah, I guess I'm saying that I do think the actual punishment matters. But I do agree with you on the authority/child distinction.
[User Picture]From: chrismaverick Date: October 21st, 2005 - 07:23 pm (Link)
ok, that's a viable argument. I don't know that I agree or not. But I do understand what you're saying now.

Thanx for the clarification.

• Go to Top