HOME | DD
Channeleven β You're a parent for a reason
Published: 2016-01-25 02:58:27 +0000 UTC; Views: 3485; Favourites: 61; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description
This is pretty harsh, but just bare with me on this. Believe it or not, but there're people (usually those like some mediocre reviewer and his fanbase of a lower quality) who think that television is important for kids, in that kids should be subjected to moralistic crap that'd give 90s fans a boner.I'm criticizing this because by relying on cartoons to educate kids, it shows that you're a pretty shitty parent who is uninformed and ignorant over how to raise a child properly.
If you want to raise a child, do it yourself, and don't let a boob-tube do it for you. Otherwise, you might as well just leave your child in the living room in front of the TV forever.
I'm not saying that it's bad to watch TV, but if you believe that subjecting your kids to it in an attempt to educate them, or if you're the kind of person who holds a segregation complex when it comes to programs that aren't too good, you shouldn't be anywhere near kids.
Made with DeviantArt muro
Related content
Comments: 121
π: 0 β©: 0
I thought it was called entertainment for a reason. It's not real. True, nothing wrong with learning something from it, but the primary source should be the parents.
π: 0 β©: 0
does this also goes to people who raise kids through tablets and phones?
π: 0 β©: 1
I mean like parents let them watch bad and cringeworthy youtube videos that are bad for 3 year olds
π: 0 β©: 1
You should limit what your children watch on TV along with how much and how often they use it. Β However, I am not a television abolitionist. Β Moving images have power that words simply do not have. Β If you can teach your children a lesson by talking to them or reading a book to them or doing an activity with them, fine, but what if those methods don't work? Β Some things have to be seen to be believed, and not everything can be seen by everyone in person.
π: 0 β©: 1
Only when shows have lessons in them are something that kids will learn from tv but if they learn from shows that are made for entertainment then yes that is when they copy something bad from tv.
π: 0 β©: 1
Hey, does this badge/stamp also apply to education video games?
π: 0 β©: 1
I was raised educationally by my parents. They didn't have to rely on tv.
π: 0 β©: 1
I wasn't raised by tv much, at most it's where I got some views on creativity (and how far a show can go while still having a Y-7 rating.)
The rest of the time I was raised by my mother and grandparents.
π: 0 β©: 1
I was raised 50% by tv and 50% by my parents. And honestly, I have better common sense than half if not all of the kids of this new generation. I mean, you think of all these sick ass fetishes, you know that ain't from my generation. My kid watches a lot of tv, but I'd never neglect her by leaving her there all day. We go to the park like, everyday, I let her read everyday, she has a shit ton of legos. I don't plan to shelter here. And I'm not using the character on TV as her role models. I know I can be her role model, cause I'm nothing. I want her to see herself as a role model, that she doesn't need an idol in order to live a good life.
I only quarter agree with you on this, mainly cause I was one of those rare kids that TV actually taught me stuff to think about. I'm a loser, but I'm probably the only one who looks at an upside-down painting and calls it an upside-down painting, while everyone denies it.
π: 0 β©: 1
This could also aimed at the people who complains about the goofy characters. Like SpongeBob, Po (Kung Fu Panda), Dee-Dee, Star Butterfly, etc (But yet they don't complain about the generic villains. Like Broly and Sephiroth. :/)
π: 0 β©: 1
If I ever have kids, they won't be allowed to watch TV until they're two years old. I read that if babies are exposed to TV, it can potentially negatively influence their language development and reading skills. I don't want my kids talking in the third person when they're five years old. They'll have plenty of toys play with. I'll even buy them toys of their favorite cartoon characters so they can play with the characters when the TV needs to be off.
I actually plan letting my kids read the original versions of fairy tales too. Kids don't need to be sheltered from violence and stuff that isn't "politically correct". Come on, it's not the end of the world if your kid sees a golliwog doll or a lioness killing a baboon.
Parents should spend more time with their kids. Even if you don't have custody of your kids, you should still try to do it.
π: 0 β©: 3
I wasn't scared one bit when they mentioned cutting the wolf's stomach in Little Red Riding Hood, or when I learned that in the original version the Little Mermaid died.Β
π: 0 β©: 0
I would do the same when it comes to fairytales, I see no argument against showing my kid the original tales, if it scares them a bit, oh well, a little childhood trauma never hurt.
π: 0 β©: 1
If my kids get scared by a fairy tale, I'll just tell them it's not real. I would never tell them to suck it up - telling your kid to suck it up is really mean.
π: 0 β©: 0
I agree.
Parents who do this and deflect responsibility towards cartoon companies to raise their kids are annoying. Especially when they try to make everything moralizing to their own ends and whine endlessly about how the media is ruining their children, when it's their own fault for being shitty parents who never teach their kids basic things like right and wrong.
π: 0 β©: 1
When people go bad, I believe that it is a cause of many different factors, such as economic status, education, beliefs, their treatment by others and by their own parents, and even access to guns. The media may have a small influence, but it's marginal and superseded by the other factors.
And trust me, you aren't alone. The media has been blamed for 'brainwashing people into monsters' and messing up their minds for a very, very long time. Even fairy tale books were at one point blamed by such people for it, and that led to many fairy tales back in the day of being moralizing and awful...
π: 0 β©: 2
Actually, old fairy tales aren't usually as moralistic as many people think they are. They were originally written for adults. Victorians notably rewrote fairy tales to teach morals to children, often taking the enjoyment out of them. There was a guy who rewrote Cinderella to make it a story about the "evils" of alcohol, and believe me, it was one of the worst things I've ever read. Then again, the Victorians are to blame for making respected fairy tale writers look like jokes. Even the Brothers Grimm had to kowtow to the Victorian censors.
But I do agree that the genre isn't for everyone.
π: 0 β©: 1
Ah, that is very true and is my actually my point. The Victorians were notorious for doing that sort of thing...because morality. So much so that Alice in Wonderland was actually poking fun at them and the absurdity of it all. The point I also would like to make is that it is their exact logic and reasoning that is being used to attack forms of entertainment today, on the grounds of 'morality'.
π: 0 β©: 0
This can also be aimed at the SJW moo cows who believe fictional characters have to be role models to children :/
π: 0 β©: 3
Definitely.
I know that people like to see representation, but fictional characters can't replace real people.Β
π: 0 β©: 1
I know! God its so annoying to hear all that bullshit DX
π: 0 β©: 1
I know. I'm autistic, and I feel that I cannot relate to most fictional characters with autism. They tend to fall into one of the following categories:
1. Ambiguously autistic (they have autistic traits but the show never says they're autistic, i.e. Sheldon Cooper from The Big Bang Theory)
2. "Idiot savants" (low-functioning but display savant skills, i.e. Susan from the Babysitters' Club book Kristy and the Secret of Susan)
3. "Rain men" (autistic people who can't care for themselves and lack empathy, like in the movie Rain Man)
4. Violent sociopaths (the Sandy Hook shooting popularized this one)
Also, autistic characters in fiction are typically little boys. You don't see as many who are teenagers or adults, or female. They're pretty much always portrayed as asexual (or occasionally heterosexual) - you'll never see LGBT autistic people in fiction. And chances are, they'll be played by a neurotypical actor. I'm a grown man and I'm bisexual. While autistic girls are less common, they definitely exist.
I would rather relate to real people with autism because they know what it's like.
π: 0 β©: 1
Heck, I even have Asperger's myself and I don't have to relate to those type of characters to enjoy the (Unless if they were well written, I could )
Oh God, those stereoptypes are so annoying... (even tho I like the big band theory, its a guilty pleasure for me) Tho, I don't mind asexual autistics since I am one myself. Hell, they damn well exist.
Same here, heck my mom works for a program for Autism and those with mental disabilities so I pretty much can somewhat relate to them.
π: 0 β©: 0
Agreed.
π: 0 β©: 1
Someone had to say it XD
π: 0 β©: 1
Indeed they did.
π: 0 β©: 0
This goes out to you Mrenter or should I say the Zachery Comstock of Cartoons!
π: 0 β©: 1
| Next =>