Some of the latest research I’ve come across shows that movies and TV, by their passive, non-experiential delivery system, actually put the undeveloped child’s brain into a “fight or flight” state – they create anxiety in the limbic system. Susan R. Johnson, (MD, pediatrician and parent) in a great article about the effects of tv/movies on a child’s brain (http://www.youandyourchildshealth.org/articles/tv%20article.html) says:

“the majority of children’s programming (including Sesame Street) seem to put the left hemisphere and parts of the right hemisphere into slow waves of inactivity (alpha waves). Television anesthetizes our higher brain functions and disrupts the balance and interaction between the left and right hemispheres.”

It makes me sad, as a person who’s worked in the film industry and loves my movies, but I’ll be keeping my son off the media until his brain is developed at around age 11.

Check out that article above – it’s really comprehensive, technical and thoughtful.

Warmly, Amy

For sure, I am not going to treat my son to a film such as Bambi or Monster’s Inc. The original intent of Fairy Tales is to bring the child’s fear to the fore in a safe, well-constructed environment then be there to comfort him. The modern interpretation of this is the fast-forward button.

Family interaction, engagement, intervention and gentle
discipline are without qualification the most important factors in raising children to be non-violent. Movies are not the problem. Hours of unrestricted TV viewing coupled with non-engagement by parents, compounded by violence modeled by the caregiver is of course a prescription for a violent child.

Does Patty have any writing on the horrors of spanking?

A very shortlist of Patty Wiplfler’s expertise is clearly laid out on the Hand in Hand website.

Far from ‘dispensing advice’, Patty gives her best thinking on a whole range of issues that face parents. This is based on over 30 years of experience working with parents, children and professionals, as well as her wide knowledge of relevant research.

In addition, we all get to do our own thinking on Patty’s thinking. Many thousands of parents from many countries around the globe do just that with outstanding outcomes for their families and communities. The parents and professionals with whom my organisation works have their own ‘empirical evidence’ and their own good minds with which to judge the validity of Parenting by Connection. We have a significant body of evaluations that we consistently receive from parents and professionals (formally and informally qualified) on the value, and transformative nature of, Parenting by Connection.

In addition, my organisation had the opportunity to work with a researcher from an Australian University on the implementation of the Parenting by Connection programme in childcare centres with staff and with parents. The research revealed an unusually high level of positive outcomes. Other leading researchers in the United States have stated that Parenting by Connection is one of the few parenting programs that emphasises parent-child connectedness. Moreover, the approach that Patty developed provides parents with tools they can use to build this connectedness.

I am not sure why Mr Johnson chose Family Therapy as the qualification he thinks parent leaders should hold. (As far as I know, social workers do not train specifically in the area of children and parents.) There currently exists a range of formal and informal qualifications that people working with children and parents hold. While formal qualifications can be valuable, and, in some cases, that we understandably deem necessary (for a surgeon, for example), we know by experience and logic that they do not come with a guarantee of a person’s ability to think and function well. There are critically important positions for which there is no formal qualification – such as national government leadership. Some people show outstanding qualities in this area.

Nevertheless, there are many highly-regarded, formally-qualified people who think about families who welcome, and incorporate, Patty’s perspective and knowledge – like Dr Larry Cohen who wrote the wonderful book, Playful Parenting (Ballantine) that can be ordered from the Hand in Hand website.

Patty is not a voice in the wilderness. There are many concerned citizens and professionals, researchers, academics and so on across the globe who are acutely aware of the ways in which violence is directed at children and the problems posed by contemporary super heroes. It is wise to question the interests of corporations (employing qualified psychologists) that cynically and consciously manipulate children and parents. In doing so, these corporations have turned children into a market from which they make billions every year.

It seems clear to me that it does not take an ‘expert’, academic or an ‘Einstein’ to recognise what will install fears in children.

However, it does often take people like Patty Wipfler, Larry Cohen and others to get behind parents by speaking candidly in the face of the unrelenting barrage of promotion of violent and/or stereotyped figures and toys and superheros. This backing helps parents to trust their thinking and to tackle the problem, rather than feel powerless in the face of it.

Hand in Hand provides the strategies and tools to empower parents to do their own, fresh thinking and to become the expert on their own affairs. It also trains leaders to train other parents to do the same.

Imagine if the millions spent on advertising these characters and violent toys, and the further billions spent on the purchase of these products, were spent on really thinking about what children need in order to feel, and be, connected to themselves and to others. Children have the right to feel connected. Fear disconnects children. Neither the short, nor the long-term, social impact of violent toys, superheroes and so on have been measured.

Many of us adults forget, or are not conscious of, the devastating impact on children of things that seem insignificant to an adult. A statement that Patty made has remained in the forefront of my mind in this regard – “Children are born for gentle treatment.”

It is very telling that so much contemporary children’s literature is remarkably ethical in regard to children’s young minds. There is a multitude of examples of authors who are conscious to not stereotype characters or to address stereotyping. They address issues for children such as empathy, co-operation, sadness and fears, friendships and so on in a thoughtful and useful way. These are written by individuals who, I imagine, do not earn much money from their pursuit, and are not associated with multinational corporations marketing to our society’s young. They are usually beautifully illustrated.

If so much good thought can go into children’s books, should we not expect big corporations to use their vast resources to act ethically and mindfully in children’s legitimate best interests?

Thank you, Patty, for your impeccable professionalism and your warm and intelligent collaboration with my organisation. The way that Hand in Hand works, literally, hand in hand, with others – parents, professionals and other organisations – is a valuable model. In a world that is increasingly fractured by competition and conflict, it gives my organisation and me a welcome sense of security to be taking the lead of someone with your integrity.

Thank you for your tireless commitment, solid work for families everywhere and your exceptional understandings and insights. You and your organisation are immensely effective across the world and will continue to be so.

“A gift” is what hundreds of parents and professionals feedback to us about Parenting by Connection, along with “a breath of fresh air” and “something I have always known”.

Ann Hefferan
Director
Community Transformations Inc

“Media Violence–The AAP recognizes exposure to violence in the media as a significant risk to the health of children. Extensive research evidence indicates that media violence can contribute to aggressive behavior, desensitization to violence, nightmares, and fear of being harmed. The AAP calls for simplified, content-based media ratings, and has specific recommendations for the entertainment industry.”

You can read the full report here: http://energycommerce.house.gov/cmte_mtgs/110-ti-hrg.062207.Shifrin-testimony.pdf

Dr. Donald Shifrin is the American Academy of Pediatrics representative to the Oversight Council of the three-year long National Television Violence Study and a member of the AAP Committee on Public Education. In his 1998 report, printed at http://www.aap.org/advocacy/shifrin898.htm, on the results of the Television Violence Study, he says:

“For younger viewers, many harmful contextual features were seen most often in cartoons. The typical preschooler who daily watches about two hours of cartoons will be exposed to 10,000 violent incidents per year, of which 500 are at high risk of modeling aggressive attitudes and behaviors. One of the most critical and disconcerting NTVS findings suggests that for preschoolers, who have difficulty distinguishing fantasy from reality, the lesson is violence is ‘desirable, necessary and painless.’…parents are urged to be aware of the harmful influences on children of viewing repeated scenes of contextual violence that effectively teach aggressive attitudes and behaviors. These scenes in promotions or commercials also were problematic…Because television is our children’s No. 1 leisure activity, we should not minimize the ongoing impact of its thousands of visual messages on children, especially those at risk for behavioral problems.”

However, you have no expertise (none that you have listed on your website) you are not a Family Therapist a Licensed Master Social Worker, it seems you are a layperson dispensing advice to families on how to raise children. This is both dangerous and irresponsible. I suggest you enroll in a master’s level program to sharpen your critical thinking skills. Family therapy is not done practised via advice or without empiral evidence backing-up it’s application.

There is no evidence that watching cartoons such as “Finding Nemo” are deleterious to young children. Furthermore there is no evidence that watching movies or cartoons that have contain superheroes causes children to be violent.

Violence in children is a complex issue that requires a understanding of the family dynamics. Your assertions are not only off the mark but woefully-simplistic.

I was very grateful that this was his first interest in “fighting” play, but still didn’t quite know what to do. Having read Patty’s booklets and been to some of her play days when my son was a toddler gave me some direction. I played with him, being the victim most of the time. However, I never really wanted to encourage the violence. Luckily, he has mostly moved through this stage of development, or worked through most of the fears because we rarely sword-fight any more.

I also notice that many parents think nothing of letting their 3-yr olds watch the Hobbit, Star Wars or other such movies that have a lot of violence and non-human looking characters. It has been a bit tricky with a school-aged child (now 10), but I have managed to keep him from TV, including all the ads, as well as movies, videos and video games that are violent (but are so main stream as to be accepted as “OK” by most parents). So long as I model this behavior with myself (i.e., no TV, no video games), he thinks nothing of never having had a TV or not playing video games!

Thank you for sharing this article!

Luminara (Lynn) Serdar