OT Re: [Sca-cooks] violence/protecting kids in bubbles...soap alert :)

[Philip & Susan Troy]

Also sprach Solstice Studios:
>  >
>>      Good! Kids NEED to have the shit scared out of 'em every now and then .
>>  . . builds character. This notion of 'protecting' the kids from the fact
>>  that there are really bad, evil things in the world is the moral equivalent
>>  of raising them in an epistemological plastic bubble.
>
>I have often thought, and some studies support this but I can't quote them
>because its been a while, that the trouble with violence on
>televsion isn't the
>violence itself, its VIOLENCE WITHOUT CONSEQUENCES.

One of my more treasured experiences was winning the undying loyalty
of the female superintendent of the apartment building we live in,
and which my wife had lived in for years before that. Before this, it
seems the super didn't think much of me for some reason. We had a bed
delivered, and there was a particular procedure for having furniture
delivered, and when the guy showed up with our bed, I arrived to find
that the super apparently attempted to forcibly prevent the guy from
bringing this bed in through the building lobby (which is very much
against the rules). Bearing in mind that tempers were high on both
sides, and that everyone involved was of a large and vigorous nature,
the last thing the other two expected was for me to say, "You look
hot. Uncomfortable. I bet getting that bed off the truck and this far
has been a real bitch. That's too bad, because you're going to have
to do it all over again if I refuse to sign your little slip of
paper, which is what I'm going to do if you don't wheel it all around
to the back door..."

The super looked at me as if I had just carved a Z on the guy's cheek.

Some people literally have no concept of using words to solve your problems...

>But they HAVE found that putting violent programming in front of kids in
>controled studies will lead to an increase in the aggressive behaviors. And I
>personally have think that not showing true consequences WILL desenstize kids.
>
>I mean, how can we show gun fights with automatic weapons and chase seens in a
>public place not show people getting broken bones, fly by bullets,
>killed, etc?
>we don't show the pain, just the act. And we don't really watch tv with the
>kids, for the most part. We kinda let 'em just watch away and play
>the games and
>maybe not even really talk with htem about it.
>
>I used to work in broadcasting, and I think sex and violence DOES have a place
>in our viewing, but I think it needs to be realistic and in context.
>When we try
>to sheild our kids from what we think they need to avoid-- nudity, violence,
>whatever we are not allowing them a chance to learn about it and make an
>informed CHOICE about it. As a kid gets older, they need to have
>some controlled
>exposure to the subjects so they can learn what exactly it is about it that is
>not appropriate, and how they need to make their choices appropriately. This
>gives them the ammunition to make good choices, and removes the
>forbidden fruit
>aspect-- or even just the ignorance!

One of the most brilliant pieces of television I've seen in years was
the episode of Buffy The Vampire Slayer in which Buffy's mother dies.
We all waited, in some cases for hours, days, and weeks, to find out
exactly _how_ it would turn out that she wasn't really dead, or had
been murdered, naturally or supernaturally, that her death was not
from more or less natural causes, or that she might be revived in
some way. Nope. She was simply dead, and everybody had to deal with
it, go to the funeral, and deal with it. There was no villain to
fight, no one upon whom to avenge her death, and no way to redeem her
life, except to keep on keeping on. It was an amazing kick in the
teeth for a series whose focus had always been fantasy. I forget
which author wrote, "There is nothing so insignificant as a dead man."

I'm a firm believer in a little carnage, suitably corrected at the
end of the drama, to reaffirm our faith in the balance of the
universe. This past weekend my son and I, along with millions of
others, watched as a Major League pitcher named Sean Estes
contemplated throwing a 98-m.p.h. fastball at the head of a very
unpleasant man named Roger Clemens, as just about the sole method he
had of addressing a matter of honor. Estes wound up, threw a pitch
aimed more or less at Clemens' copious, chicken-wing-fortified
backside... and missed. By a wide margin. Clemens' glare of smug
scorn (which would prove to be short-lived), was intense.

Those unfamiliar with the code duello would have us believe Estes
missed through incompetence and simple failure, and both Estes and
his catcher have stated, simply and finally, that the pitch missed
and we would all have to draw our own conclusions.

I thought my son was going to cry.

But I think Estes did _exactly_ what he intended to do. He fired his
pistol in the air, because not doing so would have been perceived by
many to be dishonorable, and actually hitting him would only have
prolonged the ill will. He then went on to bi-atch-slap Clemens in a
manner that brought far more public shame upon him than just hitting
him with a ball. Estes, a pitcher with a very low batting average
indeed, batted in three runs against Clemens, including quite a
respectable home run. And make no mistake, watching Roger Clemens on
television _is_ watching violent programming. Violence and
intimidation are at least as much a part of his personal job
description as are speed and accuracy.

So I agree, violence unaddressed is probably a bad thing to portray
on TV, but dealing with it appropriately is probably a good thing,
and a good thing for a kid to see.

Adamantius

"Even when I am surrounded by a forest of my enemies' spears, I am
safe, for I know that they are my shield."
	-- Morihei Ueshiba