# "violence is always wrong"



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

I have seen this statement here, and some at MDC have discribed Finding Nemo and Playmobile toys as "violent", so I'm confused. I've always thought that children use stories and play to overcome their fears. Children learn to handle natural aggressive tendencies and experiment with power by playing super heroes, Star Wars, monsters, etc. Isn't that why so many preschoolers love dinosaurs?-- they're scary and powerful. Obviously, there are some really horrible violent movies and tv programs out there that you wouldn't want to watch- just like you wouldn't want your kids watching porn. But isn't some aggresive play normal and healthy?


----------



## Village Mama (Jul 22, 2004)

I do see that some violent play naturally seems to come through with my little guys. Even though they have never been exposed to shooting and such, and definitely encouraged not to use violence, it still happens.
In my eyes though , I will not nourish that side of my children by bringing in toys that specifically encourage that type of play. If they need to explore that aspect of themselves , they will do so without the toys anyhow.


----------



## Dar (Apr 12, 2002)

Of course violence isn't always wrong. Sometimes violence is justified. Sometimes it's necessary, in order to prevent greater harm.

Play is a way for children to explore possibilities, and I definitely think normal play can and often does include an element of violence.

And Playmobil rocks, IMO. My almost-13 year old was going through our Christmas decorations and found our Playmobil Christmas sets, and spent an hour or more playing with them... I think that's so cool. She has probably a thousand dollars worth of playmobil, stored away most of the time now...

Dar


----------



## greenstone (Sep 9, 2004)

its a big stretch to say violence is always wrong.....can people who say that honestly say theyve never played soldiers or cowboy type games? Or dragon and princess type ones? Have they never pulled a plant out of the ground to eat?
As long as no one is getting hurt, I dont see anything wrong with violent play myself...it can even help kids make sense of a problem they may be having...


----------



## Ruthla (Jun 2, 2004)

I beleive that "real" violence is always wrong- it's never OK to hit or bite or pinch or kick someone, though babies and young children sometimes need a lot of reminders about that!

"Play violence" is different- if the only "person" getting hurt is a toy or a doll, or a playmate "pretending" to be hurt, I see no problem with it. I can't tell you how many times ds has thrown a doll or stuffed animal, said "wah wah wah" and then comforted the toy!


----------



## UnschoolnMa (Jun 14, 2004)

Violence is definately not always wrong. Sometimes it's just necessary. Children are most likely going to reflect that a bit in their play.


----------



## angelpie545 (Feb 23, 2005)

Violence isn't always wrong. Violence plays a role in the natural cycle of life, as does love, sorrow, grief, happiness...and all sorts of human emotions and actions. Violence is a part of human life, and there are some neccessary forms of violence. I think that what some people are trying to get at it when violence becomes a part of everyday life, or when someone is being abused..that's what's wrong. So...I think it's a matter of understanding what's trying to be said, or someone fully explaining themselves.


----------



## Marsupialmom (Sep 28, 2003)

Finding Nemo is about a fish that was orphaned because his mom was eaten by a shark. Don't sharks eat fish in real life?

Violence if part of nature. . It is part of any animal, and humans are animals. We as human have the mental capability to contemplate it more than any other beast. We have to work out our issues when it is right and wrong. We have moral dilemmas to work through.

Is it wrong to mug/rape another person but it is ok to be violent to protect yourself. It is wrong to steal but what if there is a hurricane and you are starving?


----------



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Village Mama*
I will not nourish that side of my children by bringing in toys that specifically encourage that type of play. If they need to explore that aspect of themselves , they will do so without the toys anyhow.

What if your child really wanted a sword to play knights, or a toy pirate ship? Or is it only toy guns you're talking about?


----------



## ThinkBlu (Oct 17, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ruthla*
I beleive that "real" violence is always wrong- it's never OK to hit or bite or pinch or kick someone, though babies and young children sometimes need a lot of reminders about that!

"Play violence" is different- if the only "person" getting hurt is a toy or a doll, or a playmate "pretending" to be hurt, I see no problem with it. I can't tell you how many times ds has thrown a doll or stuffed animal, said "wah wah wah" and then comforted the toy!

I disagee with the first part of this post, but agree with the second part.

I can't tell you how much parenthood has opened my eyes. I absolutely belive that my child was fully able to understand the difference between appropriate and inappropriate violence by or before age 32 months. My child has bitten one time (that I am aware of). He was 32 months and bit a 4 year old, and he was absolutely in the right! I am sooooo grateful that he was an earily communicator, as it was, I started sending the wrong message (it is NEVER OK to bite someone) but had he not been so verbal, it would have ended with that. Turns out, while inside a play gym the 4 year old who was a foster child and previously the victim of abuse, was trying to force my child's head down to his lap. He was fairly sucessful (I'll never know how sucessful as my 32 month old was not that verbal) as my child bit him on the hip to get away and come and find me.

It's hard, because these young kids are not stellar communicators regardless of how verbal. At age 4 now, my DS will verbally say he is not tired when clearly he is, not because he is lying, but because he doesn't want to be tired or doesn't want to go to bed. Some of the violent things that have come out of my child's mouth have really floored me, but his talk is so inconsistent with his actions, so I know there is a disconnect. I think some violent play is appropriate, even helpful in helping sort things out, but should absolutely be supervised and should not be 'rewarded' as in video games. I think the biggest concern with violent play is that children do not have good judgement, and do not see when play becomes hurtful.


----------



## Ruthla (Jun 2, 2004)

OK, let me clarify- violence is appropriate in self-defense or killing an animal for food, but I've never personally experienced either of those.


----------



## phathui5 (Jan 8, 2002)

I think there is a big difference between kids (especially boys) engaging in "violent" play (army guys, cops and robbers, etc) and actual bad people committing violent acts. If anything, I think it can be good for kids to be able to diifferentiate between "ok" (police arresting a bad guy) and "bad" (thug robbing a 7-11) violence.

My older ds does have toy swords, lots of them. It used to bother me, but it doesn't anymore. He is kind and gentle with other people and would never hurt someone out of anger. If he wants to play swordfighting with his friends, I'm ok with that now.


----------



## LeftField (Aug 2, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnysideup*
What if your child really wanted a sword to play knights, or a toy pirate ship? Or is it only toy guns you're talking about?

We recently went through this with my 4 1/2 year old. I'm totally biased, but he is the most gentle boy I have ever met. We can't kill bugs in front of him. When he learned that some animals eat other animals, he wanted to know if those animals were sorry. He says he only likes "plant-eaters" for dinosaurs. He is so incredibly gentle. I don't think I've ever seen him do aggressive play that we often see with boys.

But he developed this fascination with swords and armor. He loves knights. He was originally concerned that the knights were hitting each other and he wanted to know how they avoided hurting each other. But the next thing I knew, he was wielding an imaginary sword and making swishing noises.

I was open to buying him a foam sword for outside play, provided he only hit objects with it, not people. But dh was really really against that idea at this age. Since he respects my "no toy gun" wishes, I am respecting his "no swords yet" wishes. Meanwhile, my sensitive little soul drew a sword yesterday and cut it out so he could use it.

I would not buy toys that encourage violence. But now that he's showing an interest in a specific thing, I guess I'm wavering. I think I take it more seriously than he does. As an adult, I'm thinking of swords as cutting people open and horrible things like that. As a 4yo, I think he's thinking of having a really cool tool and just being exciting. At the same time, I really hate to see preschoolers beating the crap out of each other with plastic swords; I see that a lot and I think it comes from somewhere (media or adult encouragement).

I don't know. I don't have brothers, so this is all unchartered territory to me, the whole boy thing. I just wanted to share what I've recently learned. I think that if my son had a sword, he wouldn't be construing it in the same way that I would be. And he gets all our messages about being kind and respectful, so we're covered there. I'm starting to think that a certain amount of it is just testosterone. I'm sure there are people who have never owned one violent toy that turn out to be violent, disrespectful people, because their parents didn't teach them certain things.


----------



## oyemicanto (Feb 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Village Mama*
I do see that some violent play naturally seems to come through with my little guys. Even though they have never been exposed to shooting and such, and definitely encouraged not to use violence, it still happens.
In my eyes though , I will not nourish that side of my children by bringing in toys that specifically encourage that type of play. If they need to explore that aspect of themselves , they will do so without the toys anyhow.

ITA!









My DD can be a mean dragon or mean alien with a playsilk, I don't feel any need to bring swords, guns, or other violent toys into my home.


----------



## QueenOfThePride (May 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnysideup*
I have seen this statement here, and some at MDC have discribed Finding Nemo and Playmobile toys as "violent", so I'm confused. I've always thought that children use stories and play to overcome their fears. Children learn to handle natural aggressive tendencies and experiment with power by playing super heroes, Star Wars, monsters, etc. Isn't that why so many preschoolers love dinosaurs?-- they're scary and powerful. Obviously, there are some really horrible violent movies and tv programs out there that you wouldn't want to watch- just like you wouldn't want your kids watching porn. But isn't some aggresive play normal and healthy?

I totally agree with you. I think horseplay and playing at violence is totally normal and healthy. It just needs to be guided so that no one gets hurt, scared, or overwhelmed. Kids playing violence is a great opportunity to for the parents to teach about self-control and thinking about other's feelings.


----------



## ThinkBlu (Oct 17, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *phathui5*
I think there is a big difference between kids (especially boys) engaging in "violent" play (army guys, cops and robbers, etc) and actual bad people committing violent acts. If anything, I think it can be good for kids to be able to diifferentiate between "ok" (police arresting a bad guy) and "bad" (thug robbing a 7-11) violence.


I agree with this. I think supervised violent play helps allow for this learning / communication.


----------



## SneakyPie (Jan 13, 2002)

Honestly it seems to me that this kind of play is akin to puppies & kittens wrestling each other. I can only take the analogy so far, but, for instance, with proper guidance most dogs do not grow up tearing each other apart. I see sword, dragon, etc. play in this light. Gun play seems different, perhaps because they are longer-range and a child is WAY more likely to encounter a real gun sometime (and be more able to lift it!) than they are to encounter a real, working, heavy sword. (Knock wood against either.)


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

I think people here are confusing violence with aggression.
Children are not born to be naturally violent. Violence is taught.
I do think we all have aggression, the need to feel in control or have power to a certain extent.

I teach my children that they can have power by saving people, or helping people, not harming them.
They have never played violently or used any sort of violence in their play.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Ruthla*
OK, let me clarify- violence is appropriate in self-defense or killing an animal for food, but I've never personally experienced either of those.

I know you can do both without any violence.


----------



## QueenOfThePride (May 26, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *SneakyPie*
Honestly it seems to me that this kind of play is akin to puppies & kittens wrestling each other. I can only take the analogy so far, but, for instance, with proper guidance most dogs do not grow up tearing each other apart.

In fact, if a puppy is removed from his littermates too early, he won't learn the propper doggy social rules. He will likely be fearful or aggressive to other dogs.

Unfortunately, we live in a violent world, and the children who are never allowed to explore physical fighting are going to freeze when confronted with physical aggression.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ThinkBlu*
Turns out, while inside a play gym the 4 year old who was a foster child and previously the victim of abuse, was trying to force my child's head down to his lap. He was fairly sucessful (I'll never know how sucessful as my 32 month old was not that verbal) as my child bit him on the hip to get away and come and find me.

I'd rather deal with a couple of bruises and hurt feelings from rough play than a child who fearfully submits to abuse. Remember Carlie Brucia? The girl who was kidnapped on video and later killed? She was big enough and strong enough to get away from her attacker had she known to punch, kick, bite, scream and run away. The video just shows her saying no and being led away by the hand.

I used to teach kids mixed martial arts, so I've studied personal safety quite extensively. You have to be prepared to deal with physical danger. You have to have practiced it so extensively that you will just reflexively react full force against an attacker without having to think about it.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnysideup*
What if your child really wanted a sword to play knights, or a toy pirate ship? Or is it only toy guns you're talking about?

My children do not have any of the above. There is no reason to learn how to play with weapons, especially ones designed to kill other human beings. Just does not make sense when you are trying to raise non-violent children.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *QueenOfThePride*
In fact, if a puppy is removed from his littermates too early, he won't learn the propper doggy social rules. He will likely be fearful or aggressive to other dogs.

But human beings are not dogs, we do not need to learn how to use our bodies and teeth to kill to eat.









Quote:

Unfortunately, we live in a violent world, and the children who are never allowed to explore physical fighting are going to freeze when confronted with physical aggression.
No. A child who feels loved and cared about is not going to let someone else hurt them. I never physically fought with my siblings or anyone else, and yet when I was attacked by a man when I was 15 yo, I was perfectly capable of defending myself and attacking him.

Quote:

I'd rather deal with a couple of bruises and hurt feelings from rough play than a child who fearfully submits to abuse.
Yeah, my neighbor's dad made him and another kid beat each other up until they one of them 'won' because they could not get along. That really made sense. Both boys are now deceased. Both killed by guns.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *QueenOfThePride*
I used to teach kids mixed martial arts, so I've studied personal safety quite extensively.

And it can be taught without violence. I would never send my child to a martial arts place that taught them to expect to be hurt.


----------



## oyemicanto (Feb 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Marsupialmom*
Finding Nemo is about a fish that was orphaned because his mom was eaten by a shark. Don't sharks eat fish in real life?


yes, that is true, but children under the age of about 7 to 8 years old don't have the cognitive ability to differentiate between "real" life and an animated lovable character on tv. They also don't understand the usual adult "explanation" that in real life sharks eat fish - if that is the case, some scary monster could come eat their mommy and leave them alone. In a child's mind, that is the same thing.

my point is that I see many adults allowing their children to watch television that is not age appropriate in the misguided idea that they can "explain" it to them.

i know this is off topic - sorry







:


----------



## Village Mama (Jul 22, 2004)

MamaInTheBoonies







You pretty much sum up my philosophy! Nice to see you in this discussion.


----------



## oyemicanto (Feb 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Village Mama*
MamaInTheBoonies







You pretty much sum up my philosophy! Nice to see you in this discussion.

what she said


----------



## Village Mama (Jul 22, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnysideup*
What if your child really wanted a sword to play knights, or a toy pirate ship? Or is it only toy guns you're talking about?

All of the above really. I saw some really great wooden swords and sheilds and pop guns at a country market the other day... I know my boys would love, love , love them. But to be honest... if I brought them into my home , I would be going against everything I believe. We have a non violent household.
I will not encourage violent play by bringing in toys that are made specifically to do so. While saying that... I do see that some violent play is experimented with(with or without the toy)
I don't think that encouraging violence because of my own fears about the world is a legitimate reason. In my eyes there is almost always a better way to deal with situations before resorting to violence.
Personal defence is a whole other story... what is wrong with explaining to your child that in a situation where they feel threatened and fear for thier safety to bite, hit , scream, run. How would playing with guns or swords help him in a dangerous situation?? Do you really believe that violent play is helping your child be prepared for somthing like this?


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Village Mama*
*In my eyes there is almost always a better way to deal with situations before resorting to violence.*

Exactly! Thank you! I think allowing my children to play violently will not teach them to think and use other means to solve problems. There are healthier ways to teach them how to think and solve problems without the use of violence.

There are plenty of martial arts that not only teach self-defense, but also non-violence.


----------



## UnschoolnMa (Jun 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies*
My children do not have any of the above. There is no reason to learn how to play with weapons, especially ones designed to kill other human beings. Just does not make sense when you are trying to raise non-violent children.


Ahh but it can and is possible to raise non-violent children who use or play with weapons. My son has always loved weaponry and found it fascinating. From the time he was little he'd read stories and look at pictures of weapons, especially old ones. He's designed his own (drawings) and has a collection of knives, a sword, and two pellet guns (pistol and rifle). He is not a violent kid. He will absolutely defend himself or someone else if need be, but he just doesn't go around hurting people.









My step daughter is on a rifle team and is an excellent markswoman.







She hopes to make it to the olympic level someday. She also is not violent.


----------



## UnschoolnMa (Jun 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cgmom*
yes, that is true, but children under the age of about 7 to 8 years old don't have the cognitive ability to differentiate between "real" life and an animated lovable character on tv. They also don't understand the usual adult "explanation" that in real life sharks eat fish - if that is the case, some scary monster could come eat their mommy and leave them alone. In a child's mind, that is the same thing.


Did you mean that _some_ children under the age of about 7 to 8 years old don't have the cognitive ability? Because I really disagree if this is a blanket statement. My 7 year old daughter had absolutely no issues understanding the difference between movies and her own life, particularly cartoon movies. She never once thought that Little Foot and his other dinosaur friends were going to stop by our house and that she too would have to run away from Sharp Tooth the T. Rex. Many children, in my experience, are very capable of the distinction.

Quote:

my point is that I see many adults allowing their children to watch television that is not age appropriate in the misguided idea that they can "explain" it to them.

Many families believe that children deserve the right to make their own decisions about media with gudiance and info from their parents. A parent is most likely to know what their child is ready to understand or not understand and would explain accordingly. I told my son that the movie "The Green Mile" had some scary scenes that might scare him in it, and that something bad happens to some little girls. I told him that some of the characters hurt each other in some places. We watched some of it together just fine, and then it became to much for him so we ended it.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UnschoolnMa*

He will *absolutely defend* himself or someone else if need be, but he just doesn't go around hurting people.












You mean he is ready to kill another human being?

My children are taking Tae Kwon Do and self-defense. They are not ready to kill another human being, but they are prepared to know what to do in an emergency and how to seek safety and help.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UnschoolnMa*
She never once thought that Little Foot and his other dinosaur friends were going to stop by our house and that she too would have to run away from Sharp Tooth the T. Rex. Many children, in my experience, are very capable of the distinction.

ITA. What I do not agree is that they can differentiate between the meanings in the stories. IMO, violence is unreasonable, and why would we want to subject ourselves to such unreason? It's unhealthy and I want my children to be healthy in every aspect of their lives, not just physical health.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *UnschoolnMa*
I told my son that the movie "The Green Mile" had some scary scenes that might scare him in it, and that *something bad happens to some little girls*. I told him that some of the characters hurt each other in some places. We watched some of it together just fine, and then it became to much for him so we ended it. [/COLOR]

IMO, this is not 'explaining' it. Those girls were violently raped and killed. It was not just something 'bad' happened to them.
Now, everytime the child hears "something bad happened" he is going to think about that scene in the movie.
He will not thoroughly understand the generalization of the saying, "something bad happened".


----------



## rgarlough (Jul 18, 2002)

Quote:

Finding Nemo is about a fish that was orphaned because his mom was eaten by a shark. Don't sharks eat fish in real life?

Violence if part of nature. . It is part of any animal, and humans are animals. We as human have the mental capability to contemplate it more than any other beast. We have to work out our issues when it is right and wrong. We have moral dilemmas to work through.










My 2 1/2 yo has watched the fish in our aquarium and he knows that bigger fish sometimes eat little fish. He has also watched Nemo. Some might think that he is now conditioned to seeing such 'violence' because he's seen our fish eat each other or since he's watched Nemo, he thinks that all sharks are scary... Which if anyone's watched Nemo, they know that some sharks are in a 12 step program and not all sharks eat fish







Fish are friends not food.







He's also witnessed our cats kill and eat mice, squirrels and bugs. He doesn't think our cats are scary









We also don't encourage gun play of any type in our house. Dh is a hunter of deer and ds hasn't even seen dh's rifle. However, he still managed to somehow learned about pretend guns.







He also learned that a stick can be a weapon. I am pretty sure that kids just like other creatures, chimps in particular, find usefulness in things good and bad. Teaching them our values and modeling appropriate behavior can help shape their behavior. But they will eventually decide for themselves which may go against our values and perhaps they do like guns like the PPs daughter that is an excellent marksperson


----------



## ThinkBlu (Oct 17, 2005)

Kinda off topic...

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies*
No. A child who feels loved and cared about is not going to let someone else hurt them. I never physically fought with my siblings or anyone else, and yet when I was attacked by a man when I was 15 yo, I was perfectly capable of defending myself and attacking him.

I disagree with this. I was and felt loved and cared for, and I let someone hurt me. Not sure if I could have done anything to stop it, but I never tried, just went passive.

Quote:



Quote:

I'd rather deal with a couple of bruises and hurt feelings from rough play than a child who fearfully submits to abuse.
Yeah, my neighbor's dad made him and another kid beat each other up until they one of them 'won' because they could not get along. That really made sense. Both boys are now deceased. Both killed by guns.
I don't understand. What does your neighbors dad have to do with a child defending himself rather than fearfully submitting to abuse?


----------



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

Quote:

I think allowing my children to play violently will not teach them to think and use other means to solve problems. There are healthier ways to teach them how to think and solve problems without the use of violence.
Kids play for many more reasons than just learning to solve problems. Maybe there is a reason for aggressive play. In Lawrence Cohen's book Playful Parenting he talks about how aggressive play helps children learn to control aggressive impulses. He says that children who want to play these kinds of games need to play them and strongly advises against banning. They need to play out the aggressive feelings they have inside. If it's forbidden they may feel something is wrong with them because they are given the message that it is wrong to ever want to play violent games. Play gives them a safe outlet for the feelings.

Quote:

yes, that is true, but children under the age of about 7 to 8 years old don't have the cognitive ability to differentiate between "real" life and an animated lovable character on tv. They also don't understand the usual adult "explanation" that in real life sharks eat fish - if that is the case, some scary monster could come eat their mommy and leave them alone. In a child's mind, that is the same thing.
Maybe some children can't distinguish between tv and real life, but I don't think that's true for all. My children have always seen movies as stories, no different from books. Sharks eat fish and monsters are pretend. We never had an issue differentiating there.


----------



## UnschoolnMa (Jun 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies*
You mean he is ready to kill another human being?

My children are taking Tae Kwon Do and self-defense. They are not ready to kill another human being, but they are prepared to know what to do in an emergency and how to seek safety and help.


If in the act of keeping himself or someone else who needed it safe someone dies, that would be a terrible tragedy but honestly... yes, he is prepared to do that if that is what it comes to. I know I would kill to keep my own children safe. It doesn't mean I want to and it doesn't mean it's my goal.


----------



## UnschoolnMa (Jun 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies*
ITA. What I do not agree is that they can differentiate between the meanings in the stories. *IMO, violence is unreasonable*, and why would we want to subject ourselves to such unreason? It's unhealthy and I want my children to be healthy in every aspect of their lives, not just physical health.


Well the bolded part above sums up the difference between us lol... I do not think that violence is unreasonable.









Quote:

IMO, this is not 'explaining' it. Those girls were violently raped and killed. It was not just something 'bad' happened to them.
Now, everytime the child hears "something bad happened" he is going to think about that scene in the movie.
He will not thoroughly understand the generalization of the saying, "something bad happened".
He saw some of the violent scenes and we talked about/through them. (I didn't go into total detail of what we said, and all these years later I doubt I remember every detail anyway lol) "Something bad" was how I started the convo about the movie with him. And no, at 14 he can hear the phrase "something bad" and understand that it has a variety of meanings. It was never an issue for us. Now he enjoys thrillers/some horror movies that I can't even watch, and he knows his own limits. I couldn't ask for any better of an outcome.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnysideup*
Kids play for many more reasons than just learning to solve problems. Maybe there is a reason for aggressive play. In Lawrence Cohen's book Playful Parenting he talks about how aggressive play helps children learn to control aggressive impulses. He says that children who want to play these kinds of games need to play them and strongly advises against banning. They need to play out the aggressive feelings they have inside. If it's forbidden they may feel something is wrong with them because they are given the message that it is wrong to ever want to *play violent games*. Play gives them a safe outlet for the feelings.

I have read the book, and agree about aggression. Aggression is NOT violence, though. IMO, it _is_ wrong to play violent games. There are far healthier games to play that stimulate the mind and physical body, and none encompas violence.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnysideup*
Maybe some children can't distinguish between tv and real life, but I don't think that's true for all. My children have always seen movies as stories, no different from books. Sharks eat fish and monsters are pretend. We never had an issue differentiating there.

I think very few people are unable to differentiate reality, that is not the issue we are discussing, though. We are discussing "violence is always wrong" and I totally agree. You can kill another human being without the use of violence. It is still murder, but not violent murder.


----------



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies*
I have read the book, and agree about aggression. Aggression is NOT violence, though. IMO, it _is_ wrong to play violent games. There are far healthier games to play that stimulate the mind and physical body, and none encompas violence.

Well, semantics get in the way a bit here because, as I said in the original post, some people call Playmobile toys and Finding Nemo violent. So when you say "it is wrong to play violent games." It's hard for me to tell exactly what play you are saying you would ban. Are pirates and superheros off limits? What about play wrestling?


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnysideup*
Well, semantics get in the way a bit here because, as I said in the original post, some people call Playmobile toys and Finding Nemo violent. So when you say "it is wrong to play violent games." It's hard for me to tell exactly what play you are saying you would ban. Are pirates and superheros off limits? What about play wrestling?

Violence is off limits and so are weapons. Anything else is all right.

My children definately play 'scary' games. Like at the park and they have to stay on the equipment because there are sandsharks and if they get off they'll be eaten. And so they run around like crazy and try to figure out how to get from one piece of equipment to another without touching the sand. There is no violence in their play, though.

My kids never pretended to shoot people, stab people, or beat people up. What is the point in that kind of play, if not to foster violence, or at least desensetize(sp?) the person to violence?


----------



## LeftField (Aug 2, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies*
Violence is off limits and so are weapons. Anything else is all right.

My children definately play 'scary' games. Like at the park and they have to stay on the equipment because there are sandsharks and if they get off they'll be eaten. And so they run around like crazy and try to figure out how to get from one piece of equipment to another without touching the sand. There is no violence in their play, though.

My kids never pretended to shoot people, stab people, or beat people up. What is the point in that kind of play, if not to foster violence, or at least desensetize(sp?) the person to violence?

I don't mean this in a snippy way, just pure innocent curiosity. Do you have sons and if so, how old are they?

I'm only familiar with girl play, so I was *very* uncomfortable with any kind of violent play scenarios. But I've come to realize that when my son waves his imaginary sword around, he really isn't pretending to stab or impale people in the way that we adults imagine. He's just waving his sword around. I've watched this development with fascination, as he's never been exposed to violent media of any kind (no cartoons with guns, no Star WArs and all that) and we don't own weapons. I think it's just a developmental thing with many boys and I don't think it's bad. Now, when my neighbor's preschooler boys are re-enacting Star Wars with their light-sabers, then that seems like inappropriate violent play to me, because it's coming purely from watching a violent movie that's not intended for toddlers and preschoolers. I make a distinction, I guess, on where the play is coming from and how it's done.


----------



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies*
My kids never pretended to shoot people, stab people, or beat people up. What is the point in that kind of play, if not to foster violence, or at least desensetize(sp?) the person to violence?

It's play fighting. Kids play to work through feeings. They are experimenting with controling emotions, power, fear, physical strength. Play fighting is a normal thing for kids to do and makes them less aggressive.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LeftField*
I don't mean this in a snippy way, just pure innocent curiosity. Do you have sons and if so, how old are they?

Yes, 9 yo.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LeftField*
I think it's just a developmental thing with many boys and I don't think it's bad. I make a distinction, I guess, on where the play is coming from and how it's done.

I disagree. I think violence is taught. Human beings are not born with a need for violence.

A shark eating a fish is not violence, IMO. Violence is the deliberate act of causing pain to another. NO child needs to learn or go through that, IMO.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnysideup*
It's play fighting. Kids play to work through feeings. *They are experimenting with controling emotions, power, fear, physical strength.* Play fighting is a normal thing for kids to do and makes them less aggressive.









My children never pretended to physically fight, gunfight, nor swordfight. They have pretended to be hurt and the other was a surgeon and saves their life, all of which encompassed the bolded part above.

Also, the sandshark at the playground not only covers those feelings, but also gets them problem solving.


----------



## phathui5 (Jan 8, 2002)

Quote:

It's play fighting. Kids play to work through feeings. They are experimenting with controling emotions, power, fear, physical strength. Play fighting is a normal thing for kids to do and makes them less aggressive.
Exactly.


----------



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

Quote:

I disagree. I think violence is taught. Human beings are not born with a need for violence.
Gorrillas and other primates play wrestle, why not humans?

Quote:

A shark eating a fish is not violence, IMO. Violence is the deliberate act of causing pain to another. NO child needs to learn or go through that, IMO.
When play fighting they don't really cause each other pain though.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnysideup*
Gorrillas and other primates play wrestle, why not humans?
When play fighting they don't really cause each other pain though.

There is a huge difference between wrestling and pretending to stab your sister in the stomach.

Gorillas and other primates do not pretend to kill each other, to stab or mutilate each other, set fire to one another, or any other violent acts.


----------



## Village Mama (Jul 22, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LeftField*
But I've come to realize that when my son waves his imaginary sword around, he really isn't pretending to stab or impale people in the way that we adults imagine. He's just waving his sword around. I've watched this development with fascination, as he's never been exposed to violent media of any kind (no cartoons with guns, no Star WArs and all that) and we don't own weapons. I think it's just a developmental thing with many boys and I don't think it's bad. Now, when my neighbor's preschooler boys are re-enacting Star Wars with their light-sabers, then that seems like inappropriate violent play to me, because it's coming purely from watching a violent movie that's not intended for toddlers and preschoolers. I make a distinction, I guess, on where the play is coming from and how it's done.

This is what I had ment by saying that I dont "encourage" violent play by bringing in a toy which purpose is ment for violent play. By bringing a light sabre into the house, or a sword, or a toy gun for example, I would be encouraging that sort of play. I must say that my boys have been known to play some form of swords with anything they can find to do so , but in our case the boys had been exposed to a commercial in which some little guys had been playing with a light sabre. If they had not been exposed to that commercial, I don't think that type of play would have been explored (yet at least!







)
It really bothers me when people say that it is in a boys nature to be violent... agressive a little maybe! But we encourage little boys to be that way from an early age.(just look in any toy stores boy aisles) We encourage our little girls (many mamas here encourage thier little boys too... but not in the mainstream) to be nurturing. I know a few parents who have not encouraged that side of thier little girls(through most toys geared for little girls) and by nature they have been very agressive. What I mean to say is that I believe we can nurture any type of behavior in our children.
I have had parents criticise my parenting because my boys arent as agressive as other boys. Theyve offered me books about how boys "need " to play in that way. I disagree. I have not offered agressive toys and they have found wonderful ways to play and express thier emotions without " killing " anything or anyone in the process! They are boys... and allowed to take a natural course of play, are much less agressive than other boys who have been offered the alternative.


----------



## QueenOfThePride (May 26, 2005)

MamaInTheBoonies, I don't think playing rough, playing at violence, and real violence are the same thing. My martial art encompasses boxing, kicking, wrestling, choke holds, and joint holds. Even if people are sparring full out, that is not violence. That is rough play. Experience teaches the practitioners exactly what amount of force to use to avoid actually injuring their opponent. My DH has been running his mixed martial arts school for seven years and has never had a serious injury occur to any of his students in the school or at a competition. I feel (and most other MMA artists would agree) that the best part of hard physical training is the close connection that forms among all the students. We are all on the same team, helping each other train our bodies and learn new skills. Physical touch is absent from American society and is generally frowned upon. But studies show that humans need physical human contact to be happy. Contact sports are a great way to get the contact we all need. My favorite stress reliever at the end of a hard day is to wrestle on the living room floor with my son. This fosters and re-establishes our deep connection after having been apart all day.

Quote:

Originally Posted by MamaInTheBoonies
My kids never pretended to shoot people, stab people, or beat people up. What is the point in that kind of play,
Fun? I used to play paintball. Do you think I was using it as practice so I could go out and shoot people? Uhhh, no. I was just going out to play with my friends.

Quote:

Violence is the deliberate act of causing pain to another.
You need to rethink your definition of violence. I give shots to animals. I deliberately cause them pain. Is that violence? Two people in a boxing match, both agreeing to a set of rules, trying to win by a knockout. Is that violence? No. Violence must VIOLATE someone's rights against their will. Two children playing cops and robbers, and the 'cop' shoots the 'robber', and the 'robber' dies in a dramatic and prolonged death scene before both of them collapse in giggles. Is that violence? No, that is two kids forming a bond of friendship and learning to cooperatively role-play.

Quote:

My children never pretended to physically fight, gunfight, nor swordfight.
That's fine, but are you trying to say that all children who engage in rough play are going to be violent, war-mongering, hate-filled adults?

I think that the non-violent anti-social playground play is far more damaging to children: being the outcast, exclusionary behaviors, trash talking. Wouldn't you rather your kids were engaging with other kids in playing "Hamburger Hill" than the ones no one plays with and everyone calls names?

Stealing is a violation of another person's rights. But by your definition, stealing would not be violence. I consider stealing to be violence.

Quote:

I think allowing my children to play violently will not teach them to think and use other means to solve problems. There are healthier ways to teach them how to think and solve problems without the use of violence.
Not for Carlie Brucia and many other abducted and abused children. I hope you don't think that I advocate physical fighting as the only means for children to play or sort out problems. But it is one way, and it is necessary sometimes. So you think that by allowing your children to even play one rough-and-tumble game will make them unable to function in other cognitive ways? Talking out your problems is not going to help if you've already been identified and targeted by a predator.

Quote:

There are plenty of martial arts that not only teach self-defense, but also non-violence.
Yeah, the pansy ones!







Don't worry, when DH teaches his classes, he always stresses the difference between situations when physical defense is appropriate or inappropriate.

Quote:

Violence is the deliberate act of causing pain to another. NO child needs to learn or go through that, IMO.
I agree that no child should be caused pain, if at all avoidable. But sometimes children must undergo painful medical procedures or endure an uncomfortable hot summer day.

But I believe that spanking children does fit my description of violence. Children have the right to not be hit against their will. When two children are engaging in a pillow fight or stick fight, both having fun, that can't be violence.


----------



## Village Mama (Jul 22, 2004)

QueenOfThePride
I think that the non-violent anti-social playground play is far more damaging to children: being the outcast said:


> http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/wild.gif[/IMG]
> 
> can you explain the trash talking comment for me? I dont get it.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *QueenOfThePride*
MamaInTheBoonies, I don't think playing rough, playing at violence, and real violence are the same thing.

Neither do I.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *QueenOfThePride*
Physical touch is absent from American society and is generally frowned upon.

That may be true, but I would not replace hugs with hitting.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *QueenOfThePride*
But studies show that humans need physical human contact to be happy. Contact sports are a great way to get the contact we all need.

I disagree. I believe that snuggling, holding hands, rubbing your child's back, and many more non-violent actions are healthier to meet the need for human contact.
I would not want my child to feel that they are making/getting human contact during sports. Sports is a time for learning teamwork and skills, not fulfill a need. IMO, that is unhealthy.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *QueenOfThePride*
My favorite stress reliever at the end of a hard day is to wrestle on the living room floor with my son. This fosters and re-establishes our deep connection after having been apart all day.

That sounds cool.

Quote:

Fun? I used to play paintball. Do you think I was using it as practice so I could go out and shoot people? Uhhh, no. I was just going out to play with my friends.
Well, you are practicing/learning the skills necessary to shoot people, and I really don't want my child to learn those skills.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *QueenOfThePride*
You need to rethink your definition of violence. I give shots to animals. I deliberately cause them pain. Is that violence?

No, and I am not willing to 'rethink' or redefine the meaning of violence.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *QueenOfThePride*
Two people in a boxing match, both agreeing to a set of rules, trying to win by a knockout. Is that violence? No. Violence must VIOLATE someone's rights against their will. Two children playing cops and robbers, and the 'cop' shoots the 'robber', and the 'robber' dies in a dramatic and prolonged death scene before both of them collapse in giggles. Is that violence? No, that is two kids forming a bond of friendship and learning to cooperatively role-play.

Wow. I think YOU need to learn the definition of violence. All of the above is violence, and it is not a verb variant of violate. You can violate without violence.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *QueenOfThePride*
That's fine, but are you trying to say that all children who engage in rough play are going to be violent, war-mongering, hate-filled adults?

No, but will they think before they act, every time?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *QueenOfThePride*
I think that the non-violent anti-social playground play is far more damaging to children: being the outcast, exclusionary behaviors, trash talking. Wouldn't you rather your kids were engaging with other kids in playing "Hamburger Hill" than the ones no one plays with and everyone calls names?

I have no idea what you are talking about. non-violent does not equal anti-social.









Quote:


Originally Posted by *QueenOfThePride*
Stealing is a violation of another person's rights. But by your definition, stealing would not be violence. I consider stealing to be violence.

It's not a definition I pulled out of my







.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *QueenOfThePride*
But it is one way, and it is necessary sometimes. So you think that by allowing your children to even play one rough-and-tumble game will make them unable to function in other cognitive ways? Talking out your problems is not going to help if you've already been identified and targeted by a predator.

That's why I am not raising my children to be prey.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *QueenOfThePride*
I agree that no child should be caused pain, if at all avoidable. But sometimes children must undergo painful medical procedures or endure an uncomfortable hot summer day.

We are talking deliberately caused pain here.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *QueenOfThePride*
But I believe that spanking children does fit my description of violence. Children have the right to not be hit against their will. When two children are engaging in a pillow fight or stick fight, both having fun, that can't be violence.

How?


----------



## QueenOfThePride (May 26, 2005)

Clearly, we are never going to agree.


----------



## tara (Jan 29, 2002)

I have such mixed feelings about this stuff. I am an avowed pacifist and I feel a huge responsibility to raise a peace-loving child. And I do this by example and by sharing my values and beliefs around violence. I do not allow weapons of any kind, toy or otherwise, in my house. Violent play just feels icky to me... I am not comfortable with it. I know plenty of really peaceful, gentle, loving men who grew up with bb guns. I don't think that allowing your child to play with violence means raising a violent person. But, I know plenty of perfectly healthy adults who grew up on television, too, and I'm not going there, either.

And yet, I have a child who is fascinated with violence, who wanted to be a pirate with a big sword for Halloween (and settled for being a pirate with a periscope and a parrot.







). When violent play happens in my house, we do some redirecting (but, I'm not talking about, "Ooooh, that's not good! Let's have a tea party!" More like, "This is a house of peace, and you're talking about shooting somebody. I don't feel comfortable with that kind of play. What else could we do that would be exciting? Want to fight fires? Want to wrestle?" It has reached the point where I can just say, "House of peace..." and he gets it.). And, lately he has started learning more about animals and dinosaurs, and I'm more comfortable with his violent play when he's pretending to be a T Rex trying to catch another dinosaur for dinner. Or pretending to be a cougar pouncing on a deer.







: It's a fine line.

I do think that this stuff comes naturally to kids. Well, aggressive play comes naturally, and it's a channel and an outlet for some feelings, a way to work some stuff out. I just see a vast difference between working stuff out by playing cougar and working it out by killing bad guys. I have to be honest, though, and admit that my child is too smart for my redirection. It becomes a little game we play sometimes (i.e. "Mama! I'm shooting bad guys" "House of peace, buddy. House of peace." "Hmmmm, ok. I'm shooting... uh, water! Yeah, water!"). So, how much difference am I really making here, huh? At least he understands my values.


----------



## Village Mama (Jul 22, 2004)

yes... I get the " Im not shooting mama.... Im balling".....


----------



## LeftField (Aug 2, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *QueenOfThePride*
Clearly, we are never going to agree.

Yeah...See, to me, the sandshark thing is violence (natural violence maybe). We are vegetarians and my oldest son is very upset at the idea of people or animals eating animals. In pretending a shark is eating someone, for example, the technical definition of that involves using sharp teeth to rip the flesh off bones while the person is still alive. To me, that's extremely violent. But like I said with the waving sword thing, I don't think kids usually think about it in such detail as we adults do. I'm telling you, I have never met a kid more gentle than my 4yo, but he's waving this imaginary sword around. I really do think it fulfills some sort of developmental need to be powerful and I don't think he's really thought about what the sword would be doing. I mean, he's very concerned about lions eating other animals and is rationalizing that the lions must feel sorry. So the game about the animal trying to gobble us up would be violent to him. But the imaginary sword thing is just not violent play.

I swear that I have basically treated him, in cultural terms, like a girl, as I have no brothers and he was my first child. We never had sports items or cars or anything in our house. I very strictly control their media exposure. He's not in preschool or playdate situations where he would be modeling behavior. He's all about tea parties and he's sleeping with two baby-dolls as I type this. But he's drawing and cutting out swords, with his only exposure being a picture of a knight. I don't think it's violent. I think it's developmentally normal. I just think that maybe different kids fulfill this need to be powerful differently. Kids are different. I'm not concerned. I guess we agree to disagree.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LeftField*
Yeah...See, to me, the sandshark thing is violence (natural violence maybe). We are vegetarians and my oldest son is very upset at the idea of people or animals eating animals. In pretending a shark is eating someone, for example, the technical definition of that involves using sharp teeth to rip the flesh off bones while the person is still alive. To me, that's extremely violent.

Yes, if the person was still alive, I suppose that would be violent to witness, but most animals are not eaten that way. It is safer to kill them quickly, because one, you are assured they will not run away, and two, you are less likely to get hurt by your kill.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LeftField*
But like I said with the waving sword thing, I don't think kids usually think about it in such detail as we adults do.

I am sorry, but a sword was a weapon designed specifically for hurting and/or killing other human beings, and I just cannot have that in my home.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LeftField*
I mean, he's very concerned about lions eating other animals and is rationalizing that the lions must feel sorry. So the game about the animal trying to gobble us up would be violent to him. But the imaginary sword thing is just not violent play.

I would not want my children to have irrational fears about the nature of carnivorous animals.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LeftField*
I just think that maybe different kids fulfill this need to be powerful differently. Kids are different. I'm not concerned.

I am saying that I would not raise my child to feel powerful when they act violently. That is not something to take pride in.


----------



## Nurturing Mama (Nov 11, 2003)

Since I'm the one who said some of the Playmobil figures were violent, maybe I should weigh in. Six out of seventeen of the figures on the link that I gave were holding weapons. I personally wouldn't _introduce_ those types of toys to my son. He'd have to specifically ask for them.

My son is only three, and asks a million questions about everything. I really don't want to go into specifics about swords, that they're made to hurt and kill people, why people want to hurt and kill people, what exactly a sword does when it is thrust at a person, what a stab wound looks like, what a stab wound feels like, who has real swords, will somebody stab DS, etc. I'm pretty sure he wouldn't understand most of my explanations, anyway, and I don't even understand why some people want to hurt and kill other people. If he comes to enjoy playing swordfights on his own, then I won't discourage it, but I definitely won't be the one introducing it.

I'm reading this thread with interest. I think we walk a very fine line in trying to protect our kids from violence and knowledge of violence without sheltering them too much. I'm not sure where the line is.


----------



## LeftField (Aug 2, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies*
Yes, if the person was still alive, I suppose that would be violent to witness, but most animals are not eaten that way.
I would not want my children to have irrational fears about the nature of carnivorous animals.

But the animal still has to kill and it's often not in a pleasant way, so that's still very violent. I've seen it on the Discovery channel and it still looks horrible. It also seems like lots of animals are still alive, because the severe blood loss from the first bite or two causes the victim to submit.

My son doesn't have irrational fears about those animals. He thinks thos animals (and people) are wrong. He thinks that, to cause such violence to another animal (eating someone's body) must mean (he hopes) that the aggressor is sorry. He can't wrap his head around the action of killing something and eating its body, just like you can't wrap your head around playing with swords.

I mean no disrespect to you and I've enjoyed our debate. I'm afraid I'm bowing out of it now, however. It's taking too much internal energy.


----------



## tara (Jan 29, 2002)

I agree that some of the Playmobil figures are violent. It bugs me. I love Playmobil, and my kid is absolutely addicted to them. But why do they have to give the cops/pirates/cowboys guns? Why do they have to have swords and cannons? We take those pieces away before giving them.







: I know, I'm a freak.


----------



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Nurturing Mama*
I think we walk a very fine line in trying to protect our kids from violence and knowledge of violence without sheltering them too much. I'm not sure where the line is.

I think the important thing to remember is that kids work through a lot of issues with play and stories-- difficult emotions, fear, aggression, and powerlessness. I think you can still teach your values while still being respectful of the child's need to play out their aggression or their fears or whatever. We talk about our values and demonstrate them in the way we live. I am a pacifist and I don't see any reason why anyone would need a handgun. They should be illegal imho. But I enjoyed the movie _Pirates of the Caribbean_. Some kids like to play pirates for the same reason some of us find movies like this enjoyable. Why should I forbid it? Playing a game is like telling a story. They don't want to be a real pirate. They don't really want to hurt anyone. Adults can sometimes have issues with being too literal about play. Is a snowball fight ok? What about one where each team has a castle and the snowballs are cannonballs blasting the other team's wall?


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LeftField*
But the animal still has to kill and it's often not in a pleasant way, so that's still very violent. I've seen it on the Discovery channel and it still looks horrible.

I guess I know that consuming meat is the only way a carnivorous animal can survive and IMO, it is wrong to instill irrational fears in my children. There is nothing wrong or violent about hunting and eating.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LeftField*
He can't wrap his head around the action of killing something and eating its body, just like you can't wrap your head around playing with swords.

My children know it's perfectally normal to kill an animal and eat it. There is nothing wrong or bad about that. It is wrong, bad, and plain mean to be violent. A baseball bat or tennis racket can be swung around and help a child develop the same physical strengths as swinging a sword, and neither was specifically made to cause harm like a sword is.

Quote:

I think we walk a very fine line in trying to protect our kids from violence and knowledge of violence without sheltering them too much. I'm not sure where the line is.
My children are quite aware of the definition of violence and what it is and is not. Unfortunately, I cannot shelter my children from violence, but I can raise them to be non-violent. Just because we witness something, does not mean we have to repeat the action or even condone it. I want my children to be able to use their higher thinking when they make choices.

Even in something as simple as a locked door. Do they immediately smash it open, do they look for the key, do they look for another way in?


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnysideup*
Is a snowball fight ok? What about one where each team has a castle and the snowballs are cannonballs blasting the other team's wall?

Nope. Too dangerous anyways. One of the kids will get hurt, it's like a law or something.








We downhill ski, cross country ski, ride horses, make huge snow castles, freeze colored water and put candles inside to make porch lights, etc.
There is so much to do that never involves violence and it is so much funner for everyone involved.


----------



## mamajama (Oct 12, 2002)

I have two kids (6 and 3). They wrestle and sword fight etc. pretty much *all* the time. That's how they play. That's how they've played since day one. There are monsters and hot lava all over our house from which they need to defend eachother. I'm actually quite relieved that they were born otherwise I might have unwittingly stepped into the hot lava pit which looks, on the surface, to be an innocent living-room carpet. Whew.

I don't allow toy guns, though. I'm just not into guns at all. I was being grilled by my son repeatedly for a while about why I would allow swords and not guns. It was very difficult for me to articulate why. But finally I had a lightening bolt idea. We sat down and together watched The Princess Bride. OK, if Inigo Montoya (sp?) had a gun, when the Man in Black was scaling the cliffside, the movie would be over. Inigo would never have gotten to know the man in black and actually develop an undying friendship. They would not have been able to show respect to eachother. Nor would they have had the opportunity to engage in the best sword fight ever on screen.

That was the best way to explain it to him and he just *totally* got it. Thought I'd throw that in if anyone is having difficulty or wishes to explain a similar idea to their own kids.


----------



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mamajama*
OK, if Inigo Montoya (sp?) had a gun, when the Man in Black was scaling the cliffside, the movie would be over. Inigo would never have gotten to know the man in black and actually develop an undying friendship. They would not have been able to show respect to eachother. Nor would they have had the opportunity to engage in the best sword fight ever on screen.

That's a great explination. I love _The Princess Bride_


----------



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies*
Nope. Too dangerous anyways. One of the kids will get hurt, it's like a law or something.








We downhill ski, cross country ski, ride horses, make huge snow castles, freeze colored water and put candles inside to make porch lights, etc.
There is so much to do that never involves violence and it is so much funner for everyone involved.

We do all those things, but we really enjoy a snowball fight occasionally. It's fun, and much less dangerous than downhill skiing.


----------



## Yooper (Jun 6, 2003)

IMO "forbidding" anything is really just a waste of time. Kids that are "forbidden" to play violent games will still do it out of earshot of the "forbidder". My parents did not allow gun play and would not buy them even though I really wanted one. We made guns out of carboard, still "shot" each other, and all without my parents consent or knowledge. My friends and I all played guns, watched violent movies, etc..... and not one of us is inclined to violence. No matter how many times I played with them or watch(ed) then being used, I still cannot bring myself to shoot one. Dh has a gun collection (stored out of the house) and has many times encouraged me to try and shoot one. I get too emotional even holding one and cannot bring myself to shoot one. So that theory is bunk. On the flip side, dh was also forbidden gun play and "violent" movies and had a mother that watched him like a hawk so that he never actually did defy her and look who has the gun collection? Hmmmmmm.

I just really see no point in all of this "I forbid dc to do x, y, and z". Every single child comes to a point in their life when they have to make their own decisions. I do not see how denying them that opportunity until "age x" is going to make one lick of difference except to perhaps make the forbidden thing more interesting. This applies to violent play, alcohol, "scary movies", junk food, bedtimes, etc..... Much better to discuss the topic, tell them why personally object, perhaps even ask them to do it out of your sight, and let them figure it out themselves. It is not like we really have any "control" anyway.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnysideup*
We do all those things, but we really enjoy a snowball fight occasionally. It's fun, and much less dangerous than downhill skiing.

Knock on wood, but over 100 yrs combined of my family downhill skiing, no one has ever gotten hurt.
EVERY single person in my family has gotten hurt by a snowball being thrown at them.
I am more on the side of non-violence and anti-violence, than I am worried about danger when it comes to certain outdoor sports.
I will not participate in the cycle of hurt and violence.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *yoopervegan*
IMO "forbidding" anything is really just a waste of time. Kids that are "forbidden" to play violent games will still do it out of earshot of the "forbidder".

ITA, that is why it is not "forbidden" but discussed. It is not the weapons, but the teaching of respect, peace, harmony, and non-violent ways of living. When you are raised that way, guns do not feel forbidden. Rather you have higher thinking and have not been trained to kill other human beings, but love them.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *yoopervegan*
Much better to discuss the topic, tell them why personally object, perhaps even ask them to do it out of your sight, and let them figure it out themselves. It is not like we really have any "control" anyway.

It is not about controlling your child, it is about living a non-violent life.


----------



## annakiss (Apr 4, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *yoopervegan*
I just really see no point in all of this "I forbid dc to do x, y, and z". Every single child comes to a point in their life when they have to make their own decisions. I do not see how denying them that opportunity until "age x" is going to make one lick of difference except to perhaps make the forbidden thing more interesting. This applies to violent play, alcohol, "scary movies", junk food, bedtimes, etc..... Much better to discuss the topic, tell them why personally object, perhaps even ask them to do it out of your sight, and let them figure it out themselves. It is not like we really have any "control" anyway.

I agree with this. My approach is this - we are of this culture. As much as I don't necessarily like parts of it or participate in all its trends, it is pervasive and provides a context for my life. I maybe NIP, and co-sleep and eat whole foods, don't have an SUV or a grill, but I still watch movies and listen to music, know the names of celebrities and participate in the highly divided politics of my country. Point is, we are here, now. We are in this place in this time and I don't want my children cut off from that (not that I could fully do that anyway even the Amish let the kids go try out the rest of the world for a bit - anyone remember the Amish kids busted for cocaine traficking?). I know that I have to navigate this culture to come to my own understandings of it and to accept the parts of it that I want in my life, to incorporate my understanding of my environment into my worldview and personal identity - surely my children are the same way, surely they need to do whatever they need to do to place their identities within the context of their world in order to participate fully.

My approach then is to not be rigid about my ideals. I can know that I don't want my children to be violent, but I cannot isolate them from the violence (real or pretend) that exists in the world around them. They will encounter it. I can avoid encouraging it, but I know that that won't eliminate it. When things come up, they come up. Often, they've come up sooner than I would have liked. My son has been exposed to things that I didn't necessarily want him exposed to, but I roll with it. I allow him his fixations. This is his process. So, now we have light sabers in the house. I didn't want them, DH didn't want them. MIL sent them and now there is no getting rid of them. DS is too fascinated and in love. I'm sure he's not going to be chopping people's limbs off just because he witnessed it.

There's a good letter to Mothering in the most recent issue from a 16 yo boy who points out that the FBI does not note an interest in violent video games or movies or music as a risk factor for teens who might commit violence. Violence is learned by violence. If hitting is okay in your house, then your child is likely to hit. My child knows the difference between real and fake. Most children do. It's hard for me to know how to explain it any further than to say that this is his process and I will try my best to help him navigate the world without denying my own interests or creating boundaries so rigid they become obsessions.


----------



## LeftField (Aug 2, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies*
I guess I know that consuming meat is the only way a carnivorous animal can survive and IMO, it is wrong to instill irrational fears in my children. There is nothing wrong or violent about hunting and eating.
My children know it's perfectally normal to kill an animal and eat it. There is nothing wrong or bad about that. It is wrong, bad, and plain mean to be violent.

Ok, I know I said I was done, but I can't let this one go. So, it's violent to pretend to be holding a sword. And it's violent to have a toy gun or sword. But you're teaching your children that it's not violent to use a REAL gun or sword to actually kill something, because they like the way it tastes? Humans are not like lions; they don't need meat to live, especially those of us living in industrialized societies where food is abundant.

Ok, pretend gun = violent. Real gun and blowing some innocent animal's brains out to satisfy a food craving = not violent. I don't think any of us are using the same definition of violence, so all this debate is not really about the same topic.

Just to clarify, I will repeat that I haven't instilled any sense of fear of lions or whatever in my son. He didn't even know what a vegetarian was or that he was one. He has independent thoughts and this is one of them.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LeftField*
So, it's violent to pretend to be holding a sword. And it's violent to have a toy gun or sword.

Again, I feel like you are totally missing the point. Yes, IMO, it is violent to pretend to shoot your mom with a toy gun, or stab the cat with the toy sword. If all a child wants is to hold a stick in the air, then there are non-violent means of doing that, ie-flagpole.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LeftField*
But you're teaching your children that it's not violent to use a REAL gun or sword to actually kill something, because they like the way it tastes? Humans are not like lions; they don't need meat to live, especially those of us living in industrialized societies where food is abundant.

Well, that is where we are different, as my family depends on the meat we get to survive. We do not have money to buy processed food at the grocery store. We are getting 150 lbs of buffalo next week. That will feed us for two months.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *LeftField*
Ok, pretend gun = violent. Real gun and blowing some innocent animal's brains out to satisfy a food craving = not violent. I don't think any of us are using the same definition of violence, so all this debate is not really about the same topic.

Hunting an animal for food is not violent. Killing another human being *is* violent!


----------



## tara (Jan 29, 2002)

I've been with you so far, MitB, but killing anything is violent. Sorry. It may be violence that is justified for one reason or another, but it's still violent.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tara*
I've been with you so far, MitB, but killing anything is violent. Sorry. It may be violence that is justified for one reason or another, but it's still violent.

There is no such thing as justifiable violence. Hunting and killing is not an act of violence.
So, is it violent to pick a flower and end it's life? Or eat a carrot?


----------



## oyemicanto (Feb 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cgmom*
yes, that is true, but children under the age of about 7 to 8 years old don't have the cognitive ability to differentiate between "real" life and an animated lovable character on tv. They also don't understand the usual adult "explanation" that in real life sharks eat fish - if that is the case, some scary monster could come eat their mommy and leave them alone. In a child's mind, that is the same thing.

my point is that I see many adults allowing their children to watch television that is not age appropriate in the misguided idea that they can "explain" it to them.

i know this is off topic - sorry







:

I think I will start a new thread rather than try to explain myself here


----------



## oyemicanto (Feb 11, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnysideup*
we really enjoy a snowball fight occasionally. It's fun, and much less dangerous than downhill skiing.

I can't imagine watching your children being hit in the face or body by a cold hard and potentially dangerous snowball to be "fun" ...


----------



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cgmom*
I can't imagine watching your children being hit in the face or body by a cold hard and potentially dangerous snowball to be "fun" ...









It's like a game of tag. Have you ever played tag? You chase each other around, try to catch and get away? Try it sometime. Snow is actually soft (and we have thick jackets and snow pants on), and we don't hit each other in the face. that would be mean! Wow. It just amazes me that you can't imagine a snowball fight would be fun.








eta: why would kids want to do it if it wasn't fun?


----------



## tara (Jan 29, 2002)

Come on, MitB. You know that animals have a different kind of life than carrots do. I can't believe I even have to go here - you're smarter than this. I don't give a hoot what you eat or how you acquire it, but you can't convince me that it isn't violent to shoot and kill an animal. You are choosing to shed its blood; how is that not violent?


----------



## Storm Bride (Mar 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *cgmom*
I can't imagine watching your children being hit in the face or body by a cold hard and potentially dangerous snowball to be "fun" ...









Snowballs aren't that hard if they're not packed tightly. When I have snowball fights with ds1 and dh, we all try not to hit each other in the face, although it happens. I've never been hurt by a snowball, and I've been having snowball fights for over 30 years. I've never once thought of them as being violent.

That said, I'm not as anti-violence as many people. DS1 has been collecting toy weapons of all kinds since he was about three. He loves them. He gets into sword fights with his friends and can spend hours just "dancing" around practicing his moves. He's also one of most kind, gentle boys I know. He's grown up with swords...and with baby dolls...he's learning Tae Kwon Do...and he's learning to crochet. I don't think any of those things precludes the others. I don't think the swords are a "boy thing" that much, though...dd is 10X as aggressive as ds1 ever was, and she's been like that from the beginning. She's also been exposed to _much_ less television and such - my ex was one of those people who keeps the tv on 24/7, whereas dh and I almost never watch it.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tara*
Come on, MitB. You know that animals have a different kind of life than carrots do. I can't believe I even have to go here - you're smarter than this. I don't give a hoot what you eat or how you acquire it, but you can't convince me that it isn't violent to shoot and kill an animal. You are choosing to shed its blood; how is that not violent?

Violence has only one intent, and that is to cause hurt and pain. I am not kicking and beating just any animal to death, that would be violence.

I know for a fact an animal can be killed without violence.
A person can defend themselves from an attack without violence, also!

IMO, violence is always wrong.


----------



## tara (Jan 29, 2002)

Well, I like to think that to some degree violence is in the experience of the victim. You are causing pain and hurt to an animal when you shoot it, regardless of your intent. You are taking its life. Again, I don't care if you eat meat, if you shoot it yourself, if you buy it at the grocery store, but I consider intentionally killing a living, breathing being violence. And your definition seems a bit odd to me, a twisting of the meaning to make it fit your life and your choices.


----------



## mamajama (Oct 12, 2002)

Both interesting points MITB and Tara.
Here's the dictionary.com def.
1. Physical force exerted for the purpose of violating, damaging, or abusing: crimes of violence.
2. The act or an instance of violent action or behavior.
3. Intensity or severity, as in natural phenomena; untamed force: the violence of a tornado.
4. Abusive or unjust exercise of power.
5. Abuse or injury to meaning, content, or intent: do violence to a text.
6. Vehemence of feeling or expression; fervor.

Which is more along the lines of MITB's definition. But the idea that violence is in the experience of the victim, takes the definition a step further and is definitely food for thought. (no pun intended)

I suppose it boils down to whether you feel that killing/eating meat is an unjust excercise of power or not. Cultural factors certainly play into this aspect, as does the (albeit rare) need for survival.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tara*
And your definition seems a bit odd to me, a twisting of the meaning to make it fit your life and your choices.

No, it is you twisting the definition to justify your actions.

definitions of violence

Quote:

Violence is a general term to describe actions, usually deliberate, that cause or intend to cause injury to people, animals, or non-living objects. Violence is often associated with aggression. There are essentially two kinds of violence: random violence, which describes small-scale acts of random or targeted violence, and coordinated violence, which describes actions carried out by sanctioned or unsanctioned violent groups, such as war and terrorism.
That one is the wikipedia definition, but in the link there are more definitions from different places.


----------



## oyemicanto (Feb 11, 2005)

sunnysideup Snow is actually soft (and we have thick jackets and snow pants on) said:


> http://www.mothering.com/discussions/images/smilies/lol.gif[/IMG]
> eta: why would kids want to do it if it wasn't fun?


Where I come from snow can be icy and hard - soft snow doesn't make good snowballs around here. Having grown up where snowball fights were considered "fun" - I know a lot of kids who have been hurt by snowballs and then been ridiculed for being "spoiled sports."

I personally would compare a snowball fight to dodgeball NOT tag. I wouldn't call it violent, but I can think of plenty of other activities that would be a lot more fun than being hit with a ball - one made of snow or rubber.


----------



## tara (Jan 29, 2002)

Hmmm... I think it is violating to take a life, even animal life, so #1 still holds for me.







But, I understand why someone might choose to do this and consider it justifiable for them and their family. I don't understand calling it non-violent.


----------



## tara (Jan 29, 2002)

and, mitb, you can't tell me you don't cause injury to animals when you kill them. ?? And, what actions am I trying to justify? You're confusing me.


----------



## mamajama (Oct 12, 2002)

Quote:

Hmmm... I think it is violating to take a life, even animal life, so #1 still holds for me. But, I understand why someone might choose to do this and consider it justifiable for them and their family. I don't understand calling it non-violent.
A peaceful people can subsist on hunting and still be "peaceful". The Inuit culture is a good example of this. It really does depend on one's personal definition of the term violence. It is important that this be held as a personal definition in order to philosophize the ideas presented and base moral decisions accordingly. There are deeply rooted, peacable ways to hunt. There is a huge respect for nature and her gifts amongst native hunters. To me, the term "violence" denotes a lack of respect (ie. violent speech, violent attitude )


----------



## mamajama (Oct 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tara*
and, mitb, you can't tell me you don't cause injury to animals when you kill them. ??

Well there are cultures who believe that by dying in a hunt, an animal is not injured, but rather taking on a new form.


----------



## tara (Jan 29, 2002)

I mean no lack of respect, and I appreciate you pointing that out to me, mj. But, I don't think we're that far apart in our views. I understand choosing to kill, seeing the animal as a gift and feeling thankful for its sacrifice. I don't do this, but I truly have no beef with those that do. But, I feel like part of the respect of nature and her gifts is being honest about killing. That animal's blood is on your hands. That is killing, and by its very definition, killing is violent. imo. imvho. I guess I don't see a contradiction in a peaceful people's violent killing of animals, because to me the peace is in the honest approach, in being clear about what you have to do and why you do it, in being grateful.

It's semantics.


----------



## tara (Jan 29, 2002)

The reminder that this is a cultural issue is useful to me. Helps me understand why mitb's comments just don't compute. I'm going to back out of this conversation now.


----------



## mamajama (Oct 12, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *tara*
I mean no lack of respect, and I appreciate you pointing that out to me, mj. But, I don't think we're that far apart in our views. I understand choosing to kill, seeing the animal as a gift and feeling thankful for its sacrifice. I don't do this, but I truly have no beef with those that do. But, I feel like part of the respect of nature and her gifts is being honest about killing. That animal's blood is on your hands. That is killing, and by its very definition, killing is violent. imo. imvho. I guess I don't see a contradiction in a peaceful people's violent killing of animals, because to me the peace is in the honest approach, in being clear about what you have to do and why you do it, in being grateful.


----------



## amey (Jan 20, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies*
Well, that is where we are different, as my family depends on the meat we get to survive. We do not have money to buy *processed food* at the grocery store. We are getting 150 lbs of buffalo next week. That will feed us for two months.


THe bold is my emphasis. I would argue that there are vegans or vegetarians who don't eat processed food - that many of them would avoid it, actually, as unhealthy. They may be living on bulk grains, beans and produce from gardens that were bountiful enough to can or freeze and keep them thru the winter. Just because people do not eat meat does not mean that they are eating processed food.

~amey


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *amey*
THe bold is my emphasis. I would argue that there are vegans or vegetarians who don't eat processed food - that many of them would avoid it, actually, as unhealthy. They may be living on bulk grains, beans and produce from gardens that were bountiful enough to can or freeze and keep them thru the winter. Just because people do not eat meat does not mean that they are eating processed food.

~amey

Yes, we know this. One of my sisters is vegan, grows all her own food and only buys what she can't grow.

People can be violent and never kill, and people have been killing for thousands of years without the use of violence.
I don't need to teach my children that the only way to kill a deer is to beat it to death while yelling swear words or whatever.
Growing up and with my own children, we never played or pretended to kill an animal. We did play/pretend to track them or hide and wait type of games. All non-violent but important.


----------



## velochic (May 13, 2002)

I've been following this thread and I have to say that I'm pretty amazed at the majority of the responses. I guess that I thought attachment parenting and gentle discipline also followed naturally into things like pacifism. And now I wonder if I'm really in the right place. How can people here say that hitting your child is wrong, but it's okay for children to pretend to kill each other with man-made weapons? Have we not evolved beyond that? Where does it stop? (It's okay to pretend to kill each other or wound each other with swords or god forbid, guns, but it's not okay to pretend to be a suicidal bomber on a subway.) Even if it's play, nobody can say when their children know the difference. Most adults don't know because American television desensitizes us to violence. I know I'm not making my point very well, but I just can't see ANY benefit AT ALL to any violent play. This bogus point of it letting off aggression...what an excuse!! Why does this aggression have to involve another person? Aggression can be channeled into productive endeavors, it doesn't have to be destructive. That's my opinion, anyway, and I hope to goodness that my kids do not think that even pretending to hurt other people is a wise way of letting off steam. No violence can ever be good.


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

How about this? Some people enjoy snowball fights and some don't. No one has to be "right" about snowball fights!

Anyway, imho, children often try on different personalities like they try on dress-up clothes: to see how it feels to be someone else, to see what feels like it fits.

I also believe that children best learn our values by testing them out, and sometimes that testing takes the form of going against them. If you aren't aware of or don't have experience with the alternatives, how can you honestly and firmly hold your convictions? It's like religion. My kids are being raised in a Buddhist household, but actually _being_ Buddhist is something they will have to choose after they have learned of the alternatives and decided for themselves that Buddhism is the correct path for them.

If my kids were to play violently, it would make me uncomfortable, and I would not allow play where real animals or children were the objects of the pretend violence. But I will not forbid my children from playing at violence with imaginary weapons and imaginary victims. I won't really like it, but I don't think forbidding it is the best way for them to learn to choose alternatives. It's not a choice to be peaceful if you have no alternative choice to be violent.

My kids, who are vegetarian and have no desire to actually eat meat, occasionally pretend to be eating animals. They tell me that they have caught fish and are frying them in their pretend kitchen; they proclaim that the orange they are eating is actually an animal. I just say something along the lines of "oh." When they ask me to participate, I state my values (e.g., "I don't eat animals, and I don't even want to pretend I am") and leave it at that. If my kids were ever to play violently and try to involve me, I would say something similar: "I don't hurt people or animals, and I don't even want to pretend I am." IMO, they will get the message about my values without feeling shamed, reprimanded, or disapproved of as people.

Dsiclaimer: These are MY opinions and the choices I have made about how to raise MY children, not commandments on what anyone else has to do with THEIR children. Nor am I claiming that ALL children will experiment with violent play, as we have testimonials here from mothers whose children never have.

Namaste!


----------



## nicole lisa (Oct 27, 2004)

But velochic and others, what will you do when (and if) your child becomes interested in historical dramas. My DS is all over some Shakespeare and loves practicing his sword fighting. He wants to act - his whole life is about role playing and drama and we read quite a bit from the classics. I would hurt him if I tried to suppress who he is. What kind of a message do we send to our children if the play their interested in - the work that is important to them, a part of them - is labelled as bad or deviant or forbidden? That could be a very dangerous message to send to a sensitive and listening child. And he's not DS fighting with mom or dad or friend he is Mercutio or Joan of Arc and the others involved are other characters. He and the people he plays with have no problem figuring out the difference between real life and play. He's never been in a real fight - not physical, name calling, bullying. Nothing yet. He knows when play time is OK and fun for everyone and when to cool his jets. He slays dragons and not people the majority of time or other fake things like aliens and monsters. Most of the time he's playing against his shadow, just practicing being Pan or Hook or a noble knight or king or Caliban. Maybe we should just skip the whole medieval times is our learning cause that would be the only way to avoid him playing such games.

Have you thought about what you'll allow or not allow if your child(ren) expresses themselves through dramatic arts? Swords and fighting are a big part of many different cultures' literature. Will it just not be allowed to be acted out? Or not read? Just wondering.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nicole lisa*
But velochic and others, what will you do when (and if) your child becomes interested in historical dramas.

That is theatrical acting. It is not an integral part of pretend play which is proven necessary for psychological development.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nicole lisa*
What kind of a message do we send to our children if the play their interested in - the work that is important to them, a part of them - is labelled as bad or deviant or forbidden? That could be a very dangerous message to send to a sensitive and listening child.

I don't label them as such, but I understand what you are asking. Personally, I have never done that to my children nor any person and will likely never do that.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nicole lisa*
He slays dragons and not people the majority of time or other fake things like aliens and monsters.

Again, I am rasing my children without violence. My children would rather not slay anything, but figure out how to have the best adventure.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *nicole lisa*
Have you thought about what you'll allow or not allow if your child(ren) expresses themselves through dramatic arts? Swords and fighting are a big part of many different cultures' literature. Will it just not be allowed to be acted out? Or not read? Just wondering.

My children are allowed to read, act, learn about any and everything they want to know. They have been raised to recognize violence and how to end the cycle of violence.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *velochic*
I've been following this thread and I have to say that I'm pretty amazed at the majority of the responses. I guess that I thought attachment parenting and gentle discipline also followed naturally into things like pacifism. And now I wonder if I'm really in the right place. How can people here say that hitting your child is wrong, but it's okay for children to pretend to kill each other with man-made weapons? Have we not evolved beyond that? Where does it stop? (It's okay to pretend to kill each other or wound each other with swords or god forbid, guns, but it's not okay to pretend to be a suicidal bomber on a subway.) Even if it's play, nobody can say when their children know the difference. Most adults don't know because American television desensitizes us to violence. I know I'm not making my point very well, but I just can't see ANY benefit AT ALL to any violent play. This bogus point of it letting off aggression...what an excuse!! Why does this aggression have to involve another person? Aggression can be channeled into productive endeavors, it doesn't have to be destructive. That's my opinion, anyway, and I hope to goodness that my kids do not think that even pretending to hurt other people is a wise way of letting off steam. No violence can ever be good.

ITA and completely understand what you are saying. I really like the part about aggression never needing to be destructive. I think the idea of destructive vs constructive actions when it comes to discussing violence and aggression are also important.


----------



## Sharlla (Jul 14, 2005)

I found DS using a tooth pic to spear a gummy candy. He was play acting with them. Calling the toothpic a sword.

I wouldn't say violence is always wrong. I was bullied as a child and the only way I ever got them to back off is by standing up for myself. Once they learned that I wasn't just going to cower and hide from their threats, they left me alone.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Sharlla*
I found DS using a tooth pic to spear a gummy candy. He was play acting with them. Calling the toothpic a sword.

I wouldn't say violence is always wrong. I was bullied as a child and the only way I ever got them to back off is by standing up for myself. Once they learned that I wasn't just going to cower and hide from their threats, they left me alone.

Self-defense is important and can be done without violence. My children, also, know how to get to safety or find help to get them to safety. There is never justification for violence. It is always wrong.


----------



## Sharlla (Jul 14, 2005)

Sorry, if someone punches me in the face, they are going to get hit back, simple as that.


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

*


----------



## Sharlla (Jul 14, 2005)

And in my case regarding the school bullies, we did the parent teacher conferences, the school was interveining, but it didn't do anything but make the bullies more sneaky. The school basically said they couldn't do anything because they weren't witness to any of this and it was my word against theirs. There is only so much a person can take. Ignoring doesn't work when you are being called nasty names, threatened constantly and being shoved, tripped, and slammed into lockers.


----------



## snuggly mama (Mar 29, 2004)

It seems like some of the debate here is over whether or not children are born with the need to act out aggressive behaviors, and my guess would be that some, but not all, children do. Interestingly, though, I'm also learning that a lot of what we would consider to be learned via media (violent video games, tv, even toys) may be somewhat inherent. My youngest dd, almost 5, has been blind since birth and therefore has no visual exposure to violence. She cannot see the toy swords, guns, etc. And yet, of late, her favorite game to play with her brother and sister is "throw them in the lava pit". She's also been aggressive with them by pushing them around the house. She occassionally throws her baby doll, then when it "cries", she tells it, "hush up already" instead of hugging it. Since she has experienced significant medical challenges, including lots of surgeries and invasive procedures, I sometimes wonder if she really does _need_ to feel powerful in this way.
I do discourage violent play in our house, and I am often surprised at what I perceive as the children's relief when I stop the play from getting too violent. For example, ds (8) will sometimes play forts. He loves building things, and I love his creativity. But when the fort gets attacked and lots of bad guys are coming (all his own play), I see the level of anxiety rise, even though he actually created this scenario. When I call enough, he settles down into the calmer play again and seems relieved to not have to figure out how to get away from the violent scene he was enacting. I have also seen both dd (10) and ds act out their fears from having a sister with disabilities, and I see that as a necessary component to helping them cope with certain challenges.


----------



## velochic (May 13, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *snuggly mama*
She occassionally throws her baby doll, then when it "cries", she tells it, "hush up already" instead of hugging it.

I don't believe for a minute that this came from you, but I really cannot believe that this is NOT learned behavior. She had to get it somewhere. I think that kids have natural frustration and aggression. Adults as well. Those are valid emotions. I think nature has put a great nurturing instinct in women if for no other reason than survival. This isn't natural or emotional or anything else... it has to be learned.

Violence is not an emotion, it's an action people do because of an emotion (hurt, aggression, group hysteria). And what you do with that emotion pretty much (not exclusively, but generally) divides you into one of two groups... those that destroy because of these emotions and those that are productive because of these emotions... and it is learned from an early age. I'd rather teach my dd to take out her frustrations on the dust on a table or running a mile than to grab a stick and play swords.


----------



## PancakeGoddess (Oct 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *rgarlough*
fish eat each other or since he's watched Nemo, he thinks that all sharks are scary... Which if anyone's watched Nemo, they know that some sharks are in a 12 step program and not all sharks eat fish







Fish are friends not food.









Not only that, but Nemo's mom wasn't killed by a shark. It was a baracuda!







We've watched it a feeewww times lately.


----------



## UUMom (Nov 14, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *benjalo*
Not only that, but Nemo's mom wasn't killed by a shark. It was a baracuda!







We've watched it a feeewww times lately.

OMG So have we, We love that movie. I esp love the "Must be AMERican" line from the head shark. I crack up everytime.

My kids have sometimes played wildly, but none have aggressive or violent tendancies.


----------



## PancakeGoddess (Oct 8, 2004)

Speaking whale is our favorite part.


----------



## snuggly mama (Mar 29, 2004)

"This isn't natural or emotional or anything else... it has to be learned."

I don't think that rough play is unnatural, and I certainly wasn't trying to say that I encourage or promote _violent_ play for any of my children. What I was trying to say was that some kids (not all) use rough or aggressive play to act out their powerlessness in certain situations. Dd has been in lots of situations where she has absolutely no control. She has had lots of things done to her body because she has to, and I can't let her say no. When she plays that SHE is the one doing those things (giving IV's, etc.), even if it means she's aggressive, I think it helps her overcome the traumas in her life. This isn't the only way, of course, but just one of many avenues we take to allow her to come to grips with it.

I don't think children are inherently violent at all. I think that aggression, especially as a result of emotional trauma, is a natural reaction. Teaching our children to act out that aggression in socially appropriate ways is our job.


----------



## lab (Jun 11, 2003)

Okay, here's the thing....

Violence or a violent situation (aggressive) created by my child in his/her head is completely different from an event they witness on TV and then copy.

ETA: I posted before finishing the thread. I was responding to the first page in reference to violence and TV. This thread has taken a turn!


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:

I don't think children are inherently violent at all. I think that aggression, especially as a result of emotional trauma, is a natural reaction. Teaching our children to act out that aggression in socially appropriate ways is our job.








:


----------



## tinydancer (Sep 22, 2006)

My children have been exposed to violence directly, and not by my choice. I recently, got out of a relationship where I was abused quite often, and in front of my childre. While it was going on, I noticed that they had started picking up the violence as ways to solve thier own problems, and that was a big reason that I got out. We've bee out almost two monthes and I'e seen a dramatic change in all three of my children. I've talked to them and explained that being violent toward another person is never okay, and explained what should be done in the event that anyone should abuse them in anyway. My 6 yr old thought that I was abused because "she was bad."
I have, in the last two monthes done my best to show them nothing but positive reinforcement, without spoinling and they are doing fantasic.


----------



## Dr.Worm (Nov 20, 2001)

I was just re-reading the book "Let's Roll!" written by Lisa Beamer, the wife of Todd, who said that as his last words before he and the other passengers of United 93, fought the hijackers. I was thinking how she was talking about how one of her children was playing with his airplane and explaining how most airplanes fly as he made his toy fly, and others crash, as he made his fall to the ground. It was horribly sad but, to me, it was just his way of trying to sort out this great loss of his beloved father.

Also, Todd Beamer sounded like a wonderful, caring man who went out of his way to help many people, especially his family...but on that day he used violence because he had to...and that kind of violence is much different to me than the violence of what the terrorists did on September 11th.

I am not concerned when my dd wants to play with a toy bow and arrow or play her Spyro video game and smash bad guys cause I know she understands about empathy...this is the girl who comforts kids on the playground who fall down.


----------



## Tigerchild (Dec 2, 2001)

I don't see anything wrong with pacifism, and I would expect pacifists to teach their children that violence is always wrong.

I'm not a pacifist though, and while I do not accept or model violent behavior for my kids, as they get older and ask more questions I'll share more about my viewpoints on acceptable violence.

I beg to differ that violence is not natural, though. One can make the argument that human beings should be higher evolved and as we have a unique expression of free will we should exercise it...I can respect that. But anyone who says that violence does not take place in nature clearly hasn't spent much time there.

I don't have any hard and fast rules about aggressive play. We allow our kids to wrestle (there are safe words, ect. and it has to be on a specific place with specific boundaries). Since my children have observed owls and hawks and spiders killing other animals for food, I don't object when they pretend to be lions huntig. We eat meat in our family, and I've never hidden the fact that meat is muscles from a killed animal from them. Depending on the tenor of the play, I sometimes allow for swashbuckling.

Ironically, I find my kids engage in violent play very rarely, while some of the most anti-violence parents I know have a huge problem with their kids making guns out of things, acting out, ect. My theory is that if a parent freaks, the kid (especially a school age one) is going to do it more. And since I know my own internal and instinctive feelings towards violence and aggression, and assume that it's likely some of that has been passed down to my children, I feel that by allowing some outlet for that physicality keeps things on an even keel and it's not bottled up or glorified as forbidden fruit.

And it helps that we seldom watch TV.

I can understand the viewpoints of "no violence ever" parents. I kind of wish they could respect my way of handling thigns in my family without namecalling or dire premonitions (which I think are bs, in our case anyway), but at the same time those are two oppositional points of view, and there's not much common ground, and since total pacifists are in a very small minority I understand the need for pushback.


----------



## Kwgrlup (Nov 12, 2005)

I have two boys. With the first I had a no gun rule, that quickly went out the window. I found he played guns and sword with various toys he had. My boys learned by playing with other boys. I now allow play gun and swords in the house. My 2 year-old loves to play Jedi and dress up in his robe and play with his light saber. Will it make him more violent, I do not think so. My boys love pretending to be a pirate, Jedi, and cowboys with the right accessory..







.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:

Depending on the tenor of the play, I sometimes allow for swashbuckling.
Nothing useful to add except that this should be a signature. It is one of the most hilarious sentences I have seen on MDC














(I know it's late but







)


----------



## Tigerchild (Dec 2, 2001)

:


----------



## PrennaMama (Oct 10, 2005)

The other day I was musing that I'd not seen or heard from MamaInTheBoonies for a long while, and I think I manifested myself seeing this thread (which hits home perfectly these days as dd is fascinated by pirates and swords... and is threatening me with sticks saying, "I'm gonna KILL you..." nice...).

Anyone have any tips for how to address threats made on Mommy's life??


----------



## Tigerchild (Dec 2, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PrennaMama* 
Anyone have any tips for how to address threats made on Mommy's life??

Well, I think you have to start with whether or not you allow pirate games to be played, and how old your kids are.

Even though I allow wrestling, and swashbuckling/fencing, I don't allow the kids to make lethal threats to each other even in play. They're all old enough now that they can remember the ground rules, but sometimes things get carried away in the spur of the moment. When someone breaks out the "I'm gonna kill you" phrase (which only has happened a few times, after the influence of an older friend who used it all the time), that's an automatic time out on the play (not on the people). They have have to put away the dressups and take 30-60 to play a new game, then they can try again. 2nd offense means that it's over for the rest of the day.

Sometimes I explain that people can feel frightened, sad, and hurt when play turns towards killing. (I don't always bother, it's a gut-level decision) And I explain (and enforce) that personal, non-consentual aggression is not okay. Generally I try to redirect things to all the kids working together to find treasure, to survive on the island in the middle of the ocean, to escape from the sharks, ect. We've read stories about sailors/sailing. I've started to explain that real pirates sometimes did very bad things. (my kids aren't old enough for pIrates of the Carribean, ect., so they've never seen piracy glorified, but when they ARE old enough I plan on telling the reality along with it, and it's not pretty. Especially modern pirates, vs. privateers. But are my 4 and 5 year olds ready for that kind of geeky history lesson? My daughter probably is, but hasn't expressed an interest, so I've not bothered).

If your son is young, you could say that telling someone you're going to kill them is hitting them with words, and it's not okay. And then offer acceptable (in your house) substitutes.


----------



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *PrennaMama* 
Anyone have any tips for how to address threats made on Mommy's life??

I have a dd that is the same age as yours Prenna. She sometimes sees her older siblings involved in pirate games, and she wants to be a part of the action. She'll sometimes say "kill me!" or "I'll kill you!" but, to her, it's not much different than saying "you're it!" in a game of tag. She doesn't fully grasp the meaning.

If you haven't read the book _Playful Parenting_, you should. It has some great suggestions about how to help gently direct play that's getting out of hand.


----------



## Delta (Oct 22, 2002)

My 3.5 yo son picked up, "I'm gonna kill you!" this summer from older playmates. I was shocked the first time he said it and he loved the reaction it got from me. Now he says it to get the reaction, which I try not to give but when I hear it over and over it's ---







: And I tell him gently to not say words like that to me.

So glad it's not just my child.


----------



## PrennaMama (Oct 10, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Tigerchild* 
<snip>
When someone breaks out the "I'm gonna kill you" phrase (which only has happened a few times, after the influence of an older friend who used it all the time)

I think this is what happened... she has several older buddies who play fight and talk about death and killing in play; their parents just aren't concerned with it...

Quote:

that's an automatic time out on the play (not on the people). They have have to put away the dressups and take 30-60 to play a new game, then they can try again. 2nd offense means that it's over for the rest of the day.
I love it!

Quote:

Sometimes I explain that people can feel frightened, sad, and hurt when play turns towards killing. (I don't always bother, it's a gut-level decision) And I explain (and enforce) that personal, non-consentual aggression is not okay. Generally I try to redirect things to all the kids working together to find treasure, to survive on the island in the middle of the ocean, to escape from the sharks, ect. We've read stories about sailors/sailing. I've started to explain that real pirates sometimes did very bad things. (my kids aren't old enough for pIrates of the Carribean, ect., so they've never seen piracy glorified, but when they ARE old enough I plan on telling the reality along with it, and it's not pretty. Especially modern pirates, vs. privateers. But are my 4 and 5 year olds ready for that kind of geeky history lesson? My daughter probably is, but hasn't expressed an interest, so I've not bothered).
Tiger, have I told you lately that I luv you! Your posts are generally so _mindful_ and inspiring, even when regarding the most ordinary or mundane things. Thanks!

I worked on ships for most of my 20's and dd loves to look at pics of Mama the Pirate, (I fished and followed whales, but I still did a fair amount of swashbuckling). I'm down with Pirate play, but not the inherent violence that is the back drop for it... Dh let her see some of Pirates of the Carribean (she's not even 3, I was furious) and since then she's been all into it... but only overtly using phrasing like "I'm gonna kill you!" around other older kids... or at family functions when lots of relatives are looking... charming. Lol!!

I reacted by telling her that those words hurt my feelings, killing is wrong, and talking about killing is not okay for her to do.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sunnysideup* 
I have a dd that is the same age as yours Prenna. She sometimes sees her older siblings involved in pirate games, and she wants to be a part of the action. She'll sometimes say "kill me!" or "I'll kill you!" but, to her, it's not much different than saying "you're it!" in a game of tag. She doesn't fully grasp the meaning.

See I think it's some of dh's vernacular that sert this off... he uses "Kill it" when he means finish it, like finish your dinner, or drink, orr turn off the tv... etc. So she's talking about it a lot, I think she's trying to figure out exactly what it means... Thanks for the reply!

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Delta* 
My 3.5 yo son picked up, "I'm gonna kill you!" this summer from older playmates. I was shocked the first time he said it and he loved the reaction it got from me. Now he says it to get the reaction, which I try not to give but when I hear it over and over it's ---







: And I tell him gently to not say words like that to me.

So glad it's not just my child.

Yeah, Prenna noticed my reaction and spent a whole day or 3 trying to coax another reaction out of me... I just kept telling her, "Ouch, that hurts my feelings, so I'm walking away now..."


----------

