On this thing called "rape culture"

Jonman wrote:
Chumpy_McChump wrote:
nel e nel wrote:

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the implication that we need to police people's thoughts as a preventative measure against bad behavior.

But societies do that constantly. Raising children is exactly that; shaping thought patterns to prevent unwanted behaviour. Why should that change just because people are older? It's also a whole lot more effective than, well, any other measure I can think of.

The conversation arose from talking about making media choices for our kids. That's, like, Parenting 101. Maybe 201 now I think about it, but still.

I'm absolutely comfortable with policing my daughter's thoughts, because that's what raising kids is - teaching them how to think. They have no inbuilt value system and it's your job as a parent to install one.

For adults? The callous answer is Not My Job/Not My Problem. You go ahead and watch all the kitten decapitation videos you want. I do, after all.

Spoiler:

I watch zero kitten decapitations, which is precisely how many I want to watch

This then circles back around to my original point questioning how much influence media has on our behavior. There was the recent article that highlighted the study that racist kids tend to have racist parents and social circles. The implication being that it's not media but our friends and family that are a greater factor in how our behavior develops. Two people can consume the same piece of media and have wildly different reactions to it, that's not the media's doing, it's a reflection of the individual's socialization.

I guess the bigger - and more direct - question I'm asking is: when video games were under fire from legislators (most recently the Supreme Court case, and that sheriff that was blaming criminal behavior on video games) and folks were rushing to video games' defense citing those studies that do not show a causal link between video games and behavior ("Preposterous! These old people are scapegoating games just like they did with rock and roll!") why the change of tack now that it's closer to home? ("Hmmm, maybe Pokemon is bad for kids") Have new studies come to light disproving those other studies? Or did folks really agree all along that video games do influence behavior?

nel e nel wrote:

I guess the bigger - and more direct - question I'm asking is: when video games were under fire from legislators (most recently the Supreme Court case, and that sheriff that was blaming criminal behavior on video games) and folks were rushing to video games' defense citing those studies that do not show a causal link between video games and behavior ("Preposterous! These old people are scapegoating games just like they did with rock and roll!") why the change of tack now that it's closer to home? ("Hmmm, maybe Pokemon is bad for kids") Have new studies come to light disproving those other studies? Or did folks really agree all along that video games do influence behavior?

I think that was an era where people were less critical of Socially Free Speech. In the wake of Twitter abuse and the Kool-Aid point and all that, I think people are now less concerned about Big Daddy Patriarchy coming down from above with laws, and are more concerned about Little Brother Patriarchy making the internet a socially toxic place, even if it's still legally free.

edit: in other words, "games are harmless!" was the more powerful argument (much more powerful than "even if they are harmful and should be socially suppressed, they should still be free of government interference"), but I wonder how many of the people espousing it actually believed it strongly, or were just easily convinced because video games were being attacked by a socially regressive force. Now that video games are being attacked by socially progressive forces, I think your impression is correct--they seem to be much more critical of the dangers of games.

nel e nel wrote:

This then circles back around to my original point questioning how much influence media has on our behavior. There was the recent article that highlighted the study that racist kids tend to have racist parents and social circles. The implication being that it's not media but our friends and family that are a greater factor in how our behavior develops. Two people can consume the same piece of media and have wildly different reactions to it, that's not the media's doing, it's a reflection of the individual's socialization.

I guess the bigger - and more direct - question I'm asking is: when video games were under fire from legislators (most recently the Supreme Court case, and that sheriff that was blaming criminal behavior on video games) and folks were rushing to video games' defense citing those studies that do not show a causal link between video games and behavior ("Preposterous! These old people are scapegoating games just like they did with rock and roll!") why the change of tack now that it's closer to home? ("Hmmm, maybe Pokemon is bad for kids") Have new studies come to light disproving those other studies? Or did folks really agree all along that video games do influence behavior?

Would you let a 4 year old watch Pulp Fiction?

I'm assuming the answer is "no", so next question:

Why not?

Your answer to that question is the answer you're looking for.

Start your kids out with ResDogs, you monsters.

Jonman wrote:

Would you let a 4 year old watch Pulp Fiction?

I'm assuming the answer is "no", so next question:

Why not?

Your answer to that question is the answer you're looking for.

Eh, let's remember that I don't think people will let their 4 year old watch Pulp Fiction even if they think it won't lead to them growing up into stylish hitmen or something.

They don't let 4 year olds watch Pulp Fiction because they can't handle the violence.

There's a difference between "little Timmy will grow up to be a monster" and "little Timmy will be really upset and have nightmares tonight."

nel e nel wrote:
Jonman wrote:
Chumpy_McChump wrote:
nel e nel wrote:

I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the implication that we need to police people's thoughts as a preventative measure against bad behavior.

But societies do that constantly. Raising children is exactly that; shaping thought patterns to prevent unwanted behaviour. Why should that change just because people are older? It's also a whole lot more effective than, well, any other measure I can think of.

The conversation arose from talking about making media choices for our kids. That's, like, Parenting 101. Maybe 201 now I think about it, but still.

I'm absolutely comfortable with policing my daughter's thoughts, because that's what raising kids is - teaching them how to think. They have no inbuilt value system and it's your job as a parent to install one.

For adults? The callous answer is Not My Job/Not My Problem. You go ahead and watch all the kitten decapitation videos you want. I do, after all.

Spoiler:

I watch zero kitten decapitations, which is precisely how many I want to watch

This then circles back around to my original point questioning how much influence media has on our behavior. There was the recent article that highlighted the study that racist kids tend to have racist parents and social circles. The implication being that it's not media but our friends and family that are a greater factor in how our behavior develops. Two people can consume the same piece of media and have wildly different reactions to it, that's not the media's doing, it's a reflection of the individual's socialization.

I guess the bigger - and more direct - question I'm asking is: when video games were under fire from legislators (most recently the Supreme Court case, and that sheriff that was blaming criminal behavior on video games) and folks were rushing to video games' defense citing those studies that do not show a causal link between video games and behavior ("Preposterous! These old people are scapegoating games just like they did with rock and roll!") why the change of tack now that it's closer to home? ("Hmmm, maybe Pokemon is bad for kids") Have new studies come to light disproving those other studies? Or did folks really agree all along that video games do influence behavior?

There's no change of tack. The question before was around legislation. Now it's around parenting.

Does media influence our behaviour? Undoubtably. To what extent? We don't yet know. Should it be legislated against? Absolutely not, that's not the responsibility of government. Should I be concerned as a parent? Absolutely, that's your responsibility as a parent.

It doesn't mean banning Pokemon, and it doesn't have to mean forbidding your own kid from playing Pokemon. It can mean allowing your kid to Pokemon and talking to them about what happens in the game. And that goes for TV and movies, now as when Layton and Yee weren't disgraced morons (just regular morons).

Gravey wrote:

There's no change of tack. The question before was around legislation. Now it's around parenting.

Does media influence our behaviour? Undoubtably. To what extent? We don't yet know.

I'll admit history is a tricky thing to reconstruct from personal memories, but I think nel e nel statement is accurate:

folks were rushing to video games' defense citing those studies that do not show a causal link between video games and behavior

We did seem to know when it was Layton and Yee and the other disgraced morons. Now we don't seem so sure.

And nobody is claiming a causal link between Pokemon and sexual violence, so bringing it up seems completely irrelevant.

MrDeVil909 wrote:

And nobody is claiming a causal link between Pokemon and sexual violence, so bringing it up seems completely irrelevant.

If there's no causal link then what reason does a parent have to keep their kid away from it?

cheeze_pavilion wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:

And nobody is claiming a causal link between Pokemon and sexual violence, so bringing it up seems completely irrelevant.

If there's no causal link then what reason does a parent have to keep their kid away from it?

This is the point at which I should give up and walk away, but I'm a glutton.

Seriously, cheeze, can you think of no other reason that a parent might refuse a piece of media for their kids? That shows a startling lack of imagination and/or empathy.

Here's the TL:DR version - the results of misogyny do not start and end with sexual violence. Rape culture is a thing that isn't limited to rapists.

I edited out the insults. There's no need for that.

Jonman wrote:
cheeze_pavilion wrote:
MrDeVil909 wrote:

And nobody is claiming a causal link between Pokemon and sexual violence, so bringing it up seems completely irrelevant.

If there's no causal link then what reason does a parent have to keep their kid away from it?

Here's the TL:DR version - the results of misogyny do not start and end with sexual violence. Rape culture is a thing that isn't limited to rapists.

If that's what MrDeVil909 means, then that's what I also meant back here. What confused me was him following with this comment here.

cheeze_pavilion wrote:

I edited out the insults. There's no need for that.

Respectfully disagree.

Ask dumb questions, get called out on it.

That's how P&C works.

I don't think watching Pokémon will turn my son into a rapist.

I did see the confusion on my 4 year old son's face when the lessons about consent we've tried to teach since he was one were ignored by the hero of the show. When he's older we'll chat about that. Right now it's just mixed messages.

Wanting to raise good kids and wanting to be a better person can mean we challenge assumptions and talk about things with other people and parents. We can do that without reducing everything to stump-speech binaries.

Maq wrote:

I don't think watching Pokémon will turn my son into a rapist.

I did see the confusion on my 4 year old son's face when the lessons about consent we've tried to teach since he was one were ignored by the hero of the show. When he's older we'll chat about that. Right now it's just mixed messages.

Wanting to raise good kids and wanting to be a better person can mean we challenge assumptions and talk about things with other people and parents. We can do that without reducing everything to stump-speech binaries.

I think it kind of depends on the episode too. I remember one for... I think it was catching Bulbasaur? Bulbasaur wanted to go with Ash, but wanted to do so on its own terms. Ash had to defeat Bulbasaur in combat before Bulbasaur would sent to be a part of his team. It was an intriguing notion of Pokemon autonomy (see also, any episode featuring Charizard, who wasn't putting up with any of Ash's sh*t).

As a teacher who speaks to many (clueless) parents who have no idea what their teenage kids are consuming in any media form...

If you're playing the games with your kids, and discussing them...
If you're watching tv shows and movies with your kids, and discussing them...
If you're listening to music with your kids, and discussing the lyrics...

You are not the clueless parent you feel like you are. It's the whole Finding Nemo analogy. Is your job as a parent to shield your kid from all of life and its dangers, or is it your job as a parent to introduce your kid to life and all of its dangers in the best/most informed way you can?

My wife and kids and I had a long discussion tonight about why people start smoking cigarettes (keep in mind most adults in Greece smoke, and so kids here see smoking the way American teens see drinking). Which led to a discussion about why people start to use more dangerous drugs. My wife used to be a smoker. My son let her know that this was the stupidest decision she ever made. My son, age 7.

The whole point is being the opposite of the dysfunctional sh*t I grew up with in which none of this stuff was ever discussed. Should you screen at what age your kid is exposed to what? Yeah. Also...yeah? One kid I used to tutor in English let me know he was playing GTA at his friend's house at age 9 or 10. So emphasis on the "yeah?" over the "yeah, you can definitely edit/block/screen that sh*t from your kid being exposed."

My son and I watch Buffy the Vampire Slayer together. I have in fact told him that many of my American friends might think I'm a bad parent for watching and discussing the show with him at age 7.

Sorry about that.

I, of course, have stopped him from seeing a couple episodes, but they're also episodes *I* don't want to see (was it season 2 or 3 where the boyfriend hulks out to abuse his girl friend? we didn't watch that one, AND we discussed why I didn't want those images in *my* head.)

I had a friend who didn't want his kids to EVER see The Simpsons, so they wouldn't see all that misbehaving. No offense, but his kids were little sh*theads of not respecting adults or boundaries. My kids and I watch, listen, play, and discuss this stuff (including The Simpsons) and we get requests from parents to have our kids over more, so *their* kids can see what nicely respectful kids look like.

(Not at all a humble brag. That was full-on bragging.)

I think it was Maq who floored me once by stating that he was trying to be a better parent, not make better kids. That sums up very well what's generally wrong with parenting that I see in Greece. I'm in the "be a better parent" camp. And the "gradually expose your kid to more and more and have real conversations about this sh*t" camp. Not always comfortable conversations.

It's been a while since I watched Pokémon anime. But the game is devoid of any advanced capture against will concept; they just pop out of the Pokeball and that's the only representation of it. Just explain to your kid that the monster doesn't fit in the ball straight away and is trying to curl up to fit in the ball.

My kids (4 yo girl and 7 yo boy) have no problem with playing gently with animals (or playmates) and playing games that depict simplified violence. Well the 4yo likes non violent games anyway so it isn't an issue.

I posted elsewhere that the boy announced he had a girlfriend earlier. Yesterday's lunch playtime roleplay was him being the owner of "pets" being his friends. I was a bit mortified but all the kids (mix of girls including his gf and boys) wanted him to do it and he said he treated them just like he does with his uncle's tom cat. I asked if they minded and he said everyone enjoyed it. They probably picked him to do it since he's the gentle giant in the grade.

I think so long as you instill concepts of consent and body space (which the schools do as well) the kids will pick it up. As they encounter media which is inconsistent with their upbringing, you need to be there to explain the divergence so they can distinguish the behaviour they shouldn't be emulating.

Jonman wrote:
nel e nel wrote:

This then circles back around to my original point questioning how much influence media has on our behavior. There was the recent article that highlighted the study that racist kids tend to have racist parents and social circles. The implication being that it's not media but our friends and family that are a greater factor in how our behavior develops. Two people can consume the same piece of media and have wildly different reactions to it, that's not the media's doing, it's a reflection of the individual's socialization.

I guess the bigger - and more direct - question I'm asking is: when video games were under fire from legislators (most recently the Supreme Court case, and that sheriff that was blaming criminal behavior on video games) and folks were rushing to video games' defense citing those studies that do not show a causal link between video games and behavior ("Preposterous! These old people are scapegoating games just like they did with rock and roll!") why the change of tack now that it's closer to home? ("Hmmm, maybe Pokemon is bad for kids") Have new studies come to light disproving those other studies? Or did folks really agree all along that video games do influence behavior?

Would you let a 4 year old watch Pulp Fiction?

I'm assuming the answer is "no", so next question:

Why not?

Your answer to that question is the answer you're looking for.

We're talking about cartoons, not Tarantino, that's a bullsh*t example.

Since you're all about calling out dumb sh*t in P&C, it's pretty dumb to make assumptions about people you don't know jack sh*t about and take a snarky tone in order to position yourself on higher moral ground. I never questioned anyone's parenting, only started a line of questioning to see where the line was drawn that people think media influences behavior. In the context of video games it seemed a little on the bias confirming side to be defending against legislation using data and research, but when it came to parenting to switch to what "feels right". Which exactly what conservatives do when they call out video games as being a cause of criminal behavior.

Now, as Maq pointed out, he clearly saw confusion in his son's reactions, which is totally fine, but since everyone else decided to chime in before he answered my question this is where we're at.

<3 nel.

nel e nel wrote:

We're talking about cartoons, not Tarantino, that's a bullsh*t example.

Was it bollocks.

Read what you wrote again. You weren't talking about cartoons, pal.

nel e nel wrote:

In the context of video games it seemed a little on the bias confirming side to be defending against legislation using data and research, but when it came to parenting to switch to what "feels right". Which exactly what conservatives do when they call out video games as being a cause of criminal behavior.

Right there. What I was responding to (and apologies for being vague in my quoting) was your allusion to the furore around R-rated games and censorship. The legislation you're referring to wasn't about Pikachu and cartoons, it was about Manhunt and GTA. Tarantino was an apt metaphor, albeit that I should have referenced GTA instead for clarity. My (poorly made) point was that they are two different conversations. Which we apparently stongly agree on.

Speaking of two different conversations, I think you're mistaken in assuming that what's good for society is also what's good for the individual. Data should be used for social legislation where you have a sample size in the millions. Gut should be used for family legislation where you have sample size of one. That's not bias confirming, that's a recognition of the difference in scale.

I always assumed the biggest problem with Pokemon was that it was a fantasy version of dog or c*ck fighting.

That said, my daughter played the hell out of Pokemon from early elementary school on. It didn't cause her to be less empathetic to animals, and as of right now, most people would be damn happy to have as good of a child as she has turned out to be.

I will say that until kindergarten, she was raised on TV, watching far more than anyone would consider responsible. My wife was in law school, and I worked nights, and a week of overnights every five weeks.

Her mornings was a steady stream of Sesame Street, Arthur. Franklin, and Little Bear. Holy crap, if she didn't turn out to be the kid that was nice to everyone, protected bullied kids, and a massive teacher's pet. That TV had a huge impact on her.

Video games? Not so much. Well, she is a little obsessed with cosplay, which started with Pokemon and Zelda costumes for Halloween.

But seriously, Pokemon is a c*ck fighting simulator.

Stellan was watching it and he alternated between really aggressively acting out the battles and getting scared and upset when Pokémon got hurt. He didn't know who were being friends and who were being bad guys and he didn't understand why fighting so aggressively with superpowers was a friendly thing and why people would want to be friends after that. He doesn't see a distinction between animals and people. Only friends and bad guys.

I tried to discuss with him that Pokémon enjoy fighting and sometimes become friends with people after they fight with them and the words stuck in my throat. "They look like they're struggling but they actually enjoy it" was absolutely not something I wanted to show I was cool with, especially when we're so strict on how we act with each other as a family. If we're roughhousing and someone says stop or acts upset we stop. Full stop. No exceptions. Pokémon was blurring that line and adding exceptions when I was still trying to get him to internalise the rule.

I think it was on this very thread that someone posted an article discussing how raising boys shouldn't be about saying "boys will be boys" until they're 18 and only then teaching them that no means no. If you want to tear rape culture up by the roots you have to get in early with these lessons.

I liken Pokemon Go experiences to either single player (gotta catch 'em all) and MMO PVP (gym combat). You could opt out of combat completely and walk around just catching them. God knows I avoid PVP like the plague in MMOs.

Having said that, if the child is getting confused and scared, yeah pull the plug straight away.

Bfgp wrote:

I liken Pokemon Go experiences to either single player (gotta catch 'em all) and MMO PVP (gym combat). You could opt out of combat completely and walk around just catching them. God knows I avoid PVP like the plague in MMOs.

Having said that, if the child is getting confused and scared, yeah pull the plug straight away.

I was talking about the TV show. We happily play Pokémon Go together which is why I tried the TV show in the first place.

Almost all the studies on violent behaviour and game consumption have looked people aged between 10 and 50. This discussion was kicked off discussing what media you should let a child younger than 5 have access to. I'd have thought by-and-large most people's moral system and beliefs about acceptable behaviour are somewhat fixed by age 10. Which is likely a large part of why you don't see that violent games have increased the amount of interpersonal violence in society.

But there is also the notion of psychological scripts; the set of behaviours we each internalise as acceptable/correct to enact when we are expressing our internal psychological state. Violent media may not make non-violent people turn violent but it likely changes the rationale for and the types of violence that violent people choose when they act out. You can see this sort of thing with suicide attempts and mass killings, the more graphically they are reported by the media the more commonly you see copy-cat events. It's unlikely the media drives people to suicide but it does appear to affect the choices/behaviours people choose when they choose such behaviours.

To my mind it seems completely right to restrict some types of media from kids who are both, still learning what their model of the world ought to be AND are not fully able to parse fiction from reality.

Edit: fixed some grammar and typos.

Yeah I hear you Maq, just distinguishing Pokemon Go from the rest of the franchise (which I think Jay accurately described as an euphemism for pitting animals against one another). Note I haven't played any other entry in the series but that's my understanding it.

DanB, that's exactly why there are content ratings and what they try to achieve (although as legal guardians the parents have the ultimate duty to shield from age inappropriate content).

What I am realising though is that it is very important to emphasise no means no from an early age. My daughter has a firm sense of yes and no whereas my son doesn't quite get it. He needs a lot of discouragement and pushes the boundaries within our family unit. It would be interesting to hear any other parents' views on this or if it's an individual issue.

Jonman wrote:
nel e nel wrote:

We're talking about cartoons, not Tarantino, that's a bullsh*t example.

Was it bollocks.

Read what you wrote again. You weren't talking about cartoons, pal.

nel e nel wrote:

In the context of video games it seemed a little on the bias confirming side to be defending against legislation using data and research, but when it came to parenting to switch to what "feels right". Which exactly what conservatives do when they call out video games as being a cause of criminal behavior.

Right there. What I was responding to (and apologies for being vague in my quoting) was your allusion to the furore around R-rated games and censorship. The legislation you're referring to wasn't about Pikachu and cartoons, it was about Manhunt and GTA. Tarantino was an apt metaphor, albeit that I should have referenced GTA instead for clarity. My (poorly made) point was that they are two different conversations. Which we apparently stongly agree on.

Speaking of two different conversations, I think you're mistaken in assuming that what's good for society is also what's good for the individual. Data should be used for social legislation where you have a sample size in the millions. Gut should be used for family legislation where you have sample size of one. That's not bias confirming, that's a recognition of the difference in scale.

This is where we disagree. There is literally a cubic sh*t ton of data and research - from developmental psychology to pediatrics to potty training - that one can rely on to inform their parenting choices. If one wants to shoot from the hip and go with their gut, that's fine by me, just don't try to convince me that there isn't any information out there for folks to make informed decisions. As far as my question to Maq, he answered that his son was getting mixed messages, and that's mainly what I was curious about, and that's a totally legit reason to have concerns. We've also conversed enough that I feel we know each other beyond casual forum posts, so I was genuinely curious about where he drew that line on where media influences behavior.

I also disagree about the individual vs society argument. To bring it back on topic, by working to change society (I.e. Rape culture) we only work to make things better for individuals that have been victims of sexual violence, and to hopefully prevent future individuals from being victims. Since I don't work in legislation, the only way I can work towards that societal goal is by acting on an individual level: with my son, with my family, with my neighbors....

Mmm. I was about to make a snarky "well f*ck your data, my *gut* tells me vaccines are *wrong*" comment.

Which I basically just made, so I guess I'm still an asshole.

More seriously though, I think age ratings are an attempt to negotiate the competing ideas of free expression being a net good for society and the fact that kids aren't equipped to critically interrogate ideas presented in entertainment*. So parents have to judge what their kids are capable of handling on a very individual basis. Which I think Jonman was getting at, but chose a very awkward way of expressing.

(The age ratings being seriously flawed and decided on dumb surface stuff is another issue entirely. I don't expect I'll ever have kids, but I'd rather sit down with my nephews/nieces to explain the pegging in Deadpool than going through why the murder of the vagina alien in Transformers 4 is seriously f*cked up and everyone in that movie is a horrid psychopath. Because the former is despite all the sweary surface naughtiness is super squeaky clean morally , while the latter is a nightmare under the guise of heroism.)

*Mind you, between gamergaters and DC Universe fans, I don't think a lot of ostensible adults are either.

Alien Love Gardener wrote:

Mmm. I was about to make a snarky "well f*ck your data, my *gut* tells me vaccines are *wrong*" comment.

Which I basically just made, so I guess I'm still an asshole.

I sure was on a roll of explaining myself badly yesterday, wasn't I?

I should clarify - in my metaphor, data informs the gut, but I'm still making the decision to vaccinate (or not) my kid based on my gut.

I'm not a virologist/immunologist/biologist, I haven't reviewed the technical literature and data (and probably wouldn't understand it if I did), and ultimately, I'm not making medical decisions for my kid based on a thorough analysis of data. I'm making them based on my gut's analysis of the secondary and tertiary sources available to my layman's existence.

My refutation of the anti-vax movement is very much a gut reaction. As is yours.

I think we need to start looking at media and other things as a whole. While playing GTA probably isn't going to cause a kid (or adult) to go out and steal cars and run down grandmothers in the streets, if people surround themselves with super-violent games, super-violent media, etc. then it seems reasonable that it's going to have some sort of negative effect on those people, and perhaps deaden their sensitivity to issues such as rape, killing, torture, and sanctity of life as a whole.

I'm opposed to government censoring games, books, movies, but I think more of us need to take more personal responsibility for the things we subject ourselves and our children to on a daily basis and perhaps practice more self censorship. Does that mean that we can't enjoy games such as GTA? No, but it does mean that we need to be careful and perhaps balance out our entertainments with more wholesome activities. If we have to constantly play violent games (or watch violent movies, etc.) in order to reduce stress and blow off steam, then there's some deeper problem there that needs to be resolved.

We need to promote more positive and respectful values as a society, and when we *regularly* consume media (even as adults) that glorifies rape and other sorts of violence, it doesn't seem to me that we're evolving into better people, even if playing GTA doesn't *cause* some individual to go crazy and kill someone.

Jonman wrote:

My refutation of the anti-vax movement is very much a gut reaction. As is yours.

I guess that depends on what you define as a "gut reaction".